The Iraq War

tecoyah · Jan 14, 2013

myp said:
I need to learn to keep a level head like Rocco regardless of the lunacy or disrespect of the other side (not calling anyone lunatics or disrespectful here, just a general statement). Also, I need to start reading more of whatever he reads (which might just be reading more in general)

As do we all.....if we wish to make sense at that level

Stonewall · Jan 14, 2013

RoccoR said:
We're not truly sure what cased al-Qaeda (Osama bin Laden) to target the US in 1992, leading the the 1993 bombing. There were a number of factors in play. None of which involved Iraq. We are fairly confident that US force using Saudi facilities was a major sticking point with al-Qaeda.

But we are truly sure why he declared war on us in 1998 and you are correct, US occupation of holy lands and/or places was number one on the list. One of three if I remember correctly. And I do.

Relative to Iraq, al-Qaeda wasn't an issue. While there were a couple of known international terrorist hiding out in Iraq, they were not al-Qaeda assets. What we called al-Qaeda in Iraq, was really the JTJ under Abu Massab al-Zaqarwi, a Jordanian terrorist. He wanted credit for his operation and was always being misidentified as AQI. So, in August of '04, he pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and AQ.

But relative to al-Qaeda, Iraq and our policies towards Iraq was very much relevant. And it clearly outraged Bin Laden who used it to inspire Jihad.

Yes, there are several Open Sources.

With all due respect, you just gave me some 'independent media' source....and a "think tank associated with the Rand Corporation." Anything else?

The bulls-eye, painted on Iraq was painted long before George Bush II and the The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which had many of the same members as the PNAC, was instrumental in lobbying for the Legislation of the same name.

Clinton bombed Iraq, we had been enforcing devastating economic sanctions upon Iraq, enforcing a probably illegal no fly zone not to mention the joke of a UN oil for food fiasco underway. Constant inspection, UN Resolution violation after UN Resolution violation, the situation quite untenable. There was an international bullseye on Iraq, many Arab countries wanting the removal of Saddam as well.......he had started two wars in each of the previous two decades, hard to write a foreign policy paper or have a think tank without Iraq dominating the conversation. I disagree the focus was limited to conservative thinkers or any pro Israel lobby.

At the time, other than the naval air, there was no real regional, land base strike capability prior to Gulf War I. The Saudi bases were off-limits. The Kuwaiti base had not been established. After Gulf War I, the Kuwaiti base (Ali Al Salem Air Base) was too far south to cover tactical air all the way to the Occupied Territories, Lebanon or Syria, and still maintain any meaning time-on-target. However, there were 5 air bases west of Al Asad (along the Jordanian-Syrian Border), that were very capable of being made into US Tactical Stations. Right in the middle of every predictable Middle East targets.

That is correct. Until post-Gulf War I policies of Bush I and Clinton, we didn't have forward operating bases that so upset Jihadists in the ME. Our continued occupation of Iraq, the continued and 'devastating international sanctions' was the focus of al-Qaeda, was it not? Yer close....I think.

Stonewall · Jan 14, 2013

myp said:
I need to learn to keep a level head like Rocco regardless of the lunacy or disrespect of the other side (not calling anyone lunatics or disrespectful here, just a general statement). Also, I need to start reading more of whatever he reads (which might just be reading more in general)

May I suggest the focus be kept on content. Dont matter how level headed you are if you're wrong, myp.

David · Jan 14, 2013

Stonewall said:
Iraq was not irrelevant to al-Qaeda, you are sadly mistaken in thinking so. Al-Qaeda didn't appear in Iraq with any relevance prior to the 2003 invasion......but your statement that AQ is irrelevant to the the topic is wrong. Care to learn?

This thread is about the Iraq War, not the occupation. Al Qaeda is irreverent to the topic.

RoccoR · Jan 14, 2013

Stonewall, et al,

Yes, interesting.

Stonewall said:
But we are truly sure why he declared war on us in 1998 and you are correct, US occupation of holy lands and/or places was number one on the list. One of three if I remember correctly. And I do.

(COMMENT)

You are correct. ObL was the apprentice engineer that helped his father's company (the bin Laden Group) refurbish and renovate the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It is believed then, that ObL heard the words of Juhayman al-Oteibi and became an inspired Muslim. He later came to believe that US Forces, although no where near Mecca, defiled the Holy Ground upon which the Grand Mosque was built.

But many key intelligence officials have since come to believe that when ObL approached the King, asking for support, money and weapons to defend Saudi sovereignty against a possible invasion from Iraq, and was turned down in favor of the US and Coalition --- that triggered the Jihad against America.

Within the Intelligence Community at the time, it was a minor debate.

Stonewall said:
But relative to al-Qaeda, Iraq and our policies towards Iraq was very much relevant. And it clearly outraged Bin Laden who used it to inspire Jihad.

(COMMENT)

ObL didn't care about Iraq at all. Saddam Hussein did not care for Osama bin Laden's leadership and did not reach out for al-Qaeda; there was virtually no connection of any significants between the two.

There is a connection between Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, and the probable cause to believe in a connection between Iraq and Terrorism.

supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so;
Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation;
... .... ..... Whereas, where as, and so forth, etc...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. Para "b" said:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

References:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107T4vqdQ::

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the...ials/authorization-for-use-of-military-force/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22357.pdf

Subparagraph b2 is the meat. It is tied to "terrorism" and the "WMD" by association.

Stonewall said:
With all due respect, you just gave me some 'independent media' source....and a "think tank associated with the Rand Corporation." Anything else?

(COMMENT)

Both the Rand and the PNAC are/were "Think Tanks." It is the conduit by which the influential membership of the "Think Tank" transmits ideas to the decision making level. In this case, the guys transmitting the finding, became the decision makers. That is how the ideas reach such a high level.

Stonewall said:
Clinton bombed Iraq, we had been enforcing devastating economic sanctions upon Iraq, enforcing a probably illegal no fly zone not to mention the joke of a UN oil for food fiasco underway. Constant inspection, UN Resolution violation after UN Resolution violation, the situation quite untenable. There was an international bullseye on Iraq, many Arab countries wanting the removal of Saddam as well.......he had started two wars in each of the previous two decades, hard to write a foreign policy paper or have a think tank without Iraq dominating the conversation. I disagree the focus was limited to conservative thinkers or any pro Israel lobby.

(COMMENT)

OK, if that is what you believe. Stick with it. There are a whole series of influential people that believe that same way.

Former top U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay said:
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/

Stonewall said:
That is correct. Until post-Gulf War I policies of Bush I and Clinton, we didn't have forward operating bases that so upset Jihadists in the ME. Our continued occupation of Iraq, the continued and 'devastating international sanctions' was the focus of al-Qaeda, was it not? Yer close....I think.

(COMMENT)

Correction to make it Agree: we didn't have forward operating bases offset Jihadists and offensive forces anywhere in the ME.

At the time of 9/11, we had not invaded Iraq. There was no "occupation" for ObL to fret over. The pre-war ratchet of sanctions meant nothing to ObL. He was a ethnic Yemeni and a devout Wahhabi Muslim, who had a thing for Islamic Holy sites. Rather than be worried about Baghdad, he was more concerned for Jerusalem, and the al-Aqsa Masjid which his great prophet revered.

If Osama bin Laden was upset about anything, it would have been the Battle of Tora Bora, the total destruction of the al-Qaeda's Main facilities in a series of mountain caves near the Pakistani border in Afghanistan; from December 12, 2001 to December 17, 2001.

Prior to the invasion, ObL issued The FATWA entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" of 1996. He meant Mecca and Medina (Saudi Arabia).

The general call to Jihad came in 1998, two years later. It was called the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which dealt with Arab-Israeli conflict. The US became a secondary target through its interventionist Foreign Policy as ObL saw it.

References:

"Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

I hope I was able to clarify my commentary in this.

Most Respectfully,
R

Stonewall · Jan 15, 2013

RoccoR said:
The general call to Jihad came in 1998, two years later. It was called the "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which dealt with Arab-Israeli conflict.

Quite correct in that the 1998 Fatwa from Bin Laden was a calling for Jihad against America. But I think you need to read it before telling me what it dealt with. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/jan-june98/fatwa_1998.html

This Fatwa also signed by Ayman al-Zawahiri and many other Islamic terrorist groups.

"No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:"

First of all Bin Laden...you're wrong...because I've got politicalfray members RoccoR and David arguing with you about these three facts.

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples"

there is the Holy lands both of us dicusssed RoccoR......but Bin Laden mentions a "best proof example" here doesn't he?

"The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post,"

Does this sound like militant Islam didn't think we were occupying Iraq in 1998? Let's look at his second bone of contention;

"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."

Uhhhhh....David? Sound like Iraq was irrelevant to Bin Laden to you? Your statement needs to be retracted, it's flat out wrong.

RoccoR....does this Fatwas jive reconcoile with your "ObL didn't care about Iraq at all"....cause it's quite clear he was very much outraged by our policies in Iraq and used them in this "general call for Jihad" as you called it. No this Fatwa didn't just deal with the Israeli-Arab conflict, let's keep reading and see what Bin Ladens third bone of contention is;

"Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state"

And oh look.....he's got a best proof of that as well.

"The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan"

No...you two are quite wrong. Iraq was not irrelevant to al-Qaeda, our policies there in fact were best proof example of policies that enraged hin to begin with.

SO when David hijacks my thread and states "This thread is about the Iraq War, not the occupation. Al Qaeda is irreverent to the topic."

Al-Qaeda is not irrelevant, I belief there is a deep misunderstanding by some observers as to why we were attacked by al-Qaeda. Our policies in Iraq especially our policies of sanction and blockade(mentioned specifically by Bin Laden) were primary reasons why were were attacked on 9-11. You MUST understand that link before we can go on and discuss the war. It is often asked why Iraq when Saudi militant Islamists from Afghanistan attacked us....one MUST understand the reality of Iraq during the 1990's and into the start of the Bush Presidency. Otherwise.....your opinion will be like David's....wrong.

RoccoR · Jan 15, 2013

et al,

To understand the motivation of Osama bin Laden (ObL), and the hostile reasoning against the US (which is a slightly different issue than our topic), you have to look at the totality of his works; with particular emphasis on his open "Letter to the American People" 2002; after 911, but before the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/021120-ubl.htm

In the over 3800+ words in his letter, he mentions Iraq four (4) times, and always as an example of foreign policy. He mentions Israel nine (9) times. He mentions Palestine/Palestinian sixteen (16) times.

The first 1200+ words are dedicated to answering the question: "Why are we fighting and opposing you?"

ObL said:
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

ObL said:
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

The number one reason cited was:

ObL said:
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

While Iraq is mentioned as an issue, I leave it to you to look at, and determine if it was a major concern. (Read his words and decide.) I took it as a lesser included offense, to the main issue of Foreign Policy and the support to Israel; which he continually circles back around to engage.

Most Respectfully,
R

Stonewall · Jan 16, 2013

RoccoR said:
While Iraq is mentioned as an issue, I leave it to you to look at, and determine if it was a major concern. (Read his words and decide.) I took it as a lesser included offense, to the main issue of Foreign Policy and the support to Israel; which he continually circles back around to engage.

No no RoccoR, with all due respect, it is not for you and I to "determine." This Fatwa was written fr his followers was it not. For Muslims. For he calls for all of Islam wherever they may be...to kill Americans...wherever they may be. It is this Fatwa that then motivated the Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds and Mohammed Attas of 9-11...as you called it earlier, a call to war.

And where we westerners are left to determine whether Iraq was a major concern......Iraq certainly wasn't irrelevant or fall into OBL's "don't care" category as you and David were arguing.

Furthermore, it remains a critical point to understand our involvement in the Iraq War. When our leaders both political and military sat down on Sept 12th 2001 to ask exactly what had happened.......Iraq was the obvious focal point.

Look you your earlier post to me RoccoR.....There was no "occupation" for ObL to fret over" was your point to me. That obviously isn't correct, we continued to enforce no-fly zones, occupy Iraqi air space if not actual troops on the ground, engaged in blockade and sanction devastating the Iraqi economy......these were indeed plenty for Osama to fret over.

Furthermore you tried to explain that in OBL's first Fatwa his "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places" of 1996. He meant Mecca and Medina (Saudi Arabia)."

In the 1998 Fatwa Sir...he in fact leaves nothing to determination, nothing leaving the observer to possibly conclude that "he meant Mecca and Medina." No no....Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri and all other Jihadist leaders who issued that Fatwa specifically cite Iraq and in fact claimed it to be the best proof example of exactly why war was being declared. And it was.

Once again.......the contributors on this thread must realize the role Iraq and our policies towards her played on the attacks on 9-11. Contributors such as David trying to convince us Iraq was irelevant to al-Qaeda.....nonsense. And you need to come to realize this glaring fact as well RoccoR, otherwise, no objective discussion can occur concerning the Iraq conflict.

With warm regards- Stonewall.

Stonewall · Jan 16, 2013

For sake of argument, you thread members are the Leadership in the United States and tabling discussion on September 12, 2001. You can no longer ignore the fact that a major and effective militant Islam has declared war on you. A Fatwa released. Militant Islam an active enemy based in Afghanistan, Yemen, the Sudan, and other Arab States. Your embassies bombed, a US Warship attacked(the USS Cole in active operations enforcing the UN mandated and American enforced blockade of Iraq), and now New York City's Manhatten Island itself attacked...with our own airplanes, by terrrorists who nearly all came here legally, many as early as 1998.

I often find humor in those that excuse our current President for the economic reality he supposedly "inherited"....look to what George Bush inherited related to our conversation. No doubt, Bush was President when we were attacked and thus deserves much of the blame. However, the hate that inspired this Jihad, the long range planning necessary to unleash such an attack, the manner and resolve proven by their "success".....George Bush took the helm of a nation in the crosshairs of a very serious, very capable, and very deadly terrorist organization, all formed and unleashed while he was the Governor of Texas. He inherited al-Qaeda.

And looking at root causes and how to respond to 9-11-01, any serious and objective discussion had to focus on the untenable situation in Iraq. That had continued for decades. It was obvious the United States could no longer sit idle while these organizations plotted to kill us, action had to be taken. But where?

Afghanistan an obvious eyesore, but Iraq was the dominant issue and had been for well over a decade. Iraq facilitating and funding international terrorism, shooting daily at US no fly zone enforcement, and had started wars with Iran and their invasion of Kuwait. Iraq had to be brought to a conclusion, the reality following 9-11 absolutely untenable.

And yet we have many observers today who believe Bin Laden cared little about 1990s Iraq, others who have believed for decades that al-Qaeda and our policies in Iraq irrelevant to each other. And in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, I understand the worm can this reality opens. I realize for many Observers this blows every foundation they were once so sure about concerning the entire Iraq Conflict completely away. I know it's very difficult for some to accept. I also know denial ain't no river in Egypt either. Our policies in Iraq, the invasion by Bush I and the outcome of the Gulf War, and the subsequent Clinton Administration no fly zone enforcement and blockade resulting in the devastation of the Iraqi economy not to mention the constant inspection after Resolution after sanction that amounted to nothing less than occupation in Iraq was directly and front burner responsible for what happened to us on 9-11. It was the exact right place for our Leadership to be focused, anywhere else and they would have been remiss in their duties.

Comments?

myp · Jan 16, 2013

Islam has not declared war on us. Osama Bin Laden, al queda, etc. do not speak for Islam.

Even if the Pope declared a holy war today, I would not hold that against all Catholics, let alone Christians because I know a lot of those Christians and Catholics would not be supportive of it. Same issue here.

Stonewall · Jan 16, 2013

Nobody said Islam had delcared war on us, someone did say militant Islam had declared war on us.

And we didn't take anything out on all Muslims either, we invaded Iraq calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Bush explained up front we would be leaving a free Iraq, governed by Iraqis. We invaded Afghanistan demanding the Taliban be removed from power after they refused to hand over Bin Laden....on the premise the Taliban was harboring known terrorists(also a fact in Iraq).

Not the same issue at all.

myp · Jan 16, 2013

Stonewall said:
Nobody said Islam had delcared war on us, someone did say militant Islam had declared war on us.

Fair enough, I misread your post (or you edited to clarify)- long day.

Stonewall · Jan 16, 2013

Long day as well.

It is central to the point though. Why militant Islam delcared war on the United States can all be found by rereading the history of our policies in Iraq from 1991-2001. Where Iraq certainly isn't the only reason for the US being targeted, it was a front burner and a primary reason for al-Qaeda's hate and rage resulting in the attacks on 9-11.

Understanding that leaves one no other choice following 9-11 than to make one of the US' primary focuses the nation of Iraq and the regime of Saddam Hussein. He was the greater threat. Where Bin Laden had actually attacked America, Hussein's Iraq was clearly the primary eyesore when looking at the broader scope of the threat. Removing Bin Laden.....wouldn't have changed reality...at all. Had we acted in Afghanistan only, we would have remained in Iraq, in an untenable reality, that was obviously a main bone of contention for militant Islam.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a game changer. The specifics of the war can be argued, mistakes made, successes, failures, etc. But, the fact that it changed the entire face of the ME cannot be denied. With many more consequences to come as well. For example Iran......for I submit to you that should Iraq succeed....a self determining and freely elected Iraq that attains economic and political stability...that is the death knell for the Mullah led regime in Iran. It's over. A Republic of some sort will develop in Iran as well.

The Iraq War

Similar threads