Manufacturing Anti-American Terrorists

Many are convinced that by fighting and killing insurgents in Iraq, we are making a dent in some presumably finite number of jihadis.

As if, the laws of arithmetic somehow prevent the war from enflaming, enabling, and increasing anti-American terrorists.

Terrorist Networks Lure Young Moroccans to War in Far-Off Iraq

Foreign fighters in Iraq account for only a small percentage of the combatants attacking U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies. U.S. military officials and independent analysts peg the number at no more than a few thousand. But as the war drags on, it continues to serve as a powerful rallying tool for radical Islamic networks around the world that have developed recruiting pipelines as far afield as Europe and Southeast Asia.

Moroccan authorities said they have identified more than 50 volunteers who have gone to Iraq since 2003, and many more are believed to have made the journey undetected. Security officials here said the problem is worse in other Arab countries.

It’s not at all paradoxical, nor really that hard to figure out. The phenomenon was even noted in the recnt Iraq NIE. Too many people satisfy themselves by offering “Oh then, we shouldn’t have fought the Nazis, and we shouldn’t try to kill Osama bin Laden.”

Comments

  1. DavidC wrote:

    “Many are convinced that by fighting and killing insurgents in Iraq, we are making a dent in some presumably finite number of jihadis.”

    Presumably there is a finite number of potential jihadis, given that they are a fraction of the total world Muslim population. That finite number is still pretty large. But the number of highly motivated, well-trained, veteran terrorist fighters available is far smaller. And the number of competent, skilled experienced leaders and planners, is smaller still.

    “As if, the laws of arithmetic somehow prevent the war from enflaming, enabling, and increasing anti-American terrorists.”

    Who is actually making this argument? My response to your statement is: so what? Is it somehow a surprise that America taking the offensive in the Middle East is going to inflame radical Muslims and inspire more of them to be terrorists? Should we expect no reaction? Again, I consider this to be a non-argument or simply an argument for doing nothing. Is there a way to kill our enemies without inspiring sympathizers to take up arms?

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 4:45 pm

  2. Alon Levy wrote:

    The parallels between neoconservative arguments, either in the form The Commissar is rebutting or in the form David is advancing, and annoying left-wing radicalisms, are glaring. Consider the following:

    1. Both disdain traditional politics. A realist interested in democracy promotion in the Middle East would focus on building local democratic movements, which would defeat the Islamists politically rather than inflame them militarily. Likewise, a realist interested in civil rights would focus on building a longlasting political movement using legal and political action, and only occasionally nonviolent direct action. In contrast, both neoconservatives and radical leftists prefer the methods that don’t involve dirty politics.

    2. Both view blatancy as a good in itself. Radical leftists judge people by how much they piss people off rather than by how much they achieve. Neoconservatives judge leaders by how many people they’re willing to kill rather than by how much positive influence they yield. In both cases, the emphasis is on trashing the Winter Palace rather than on administering Russia.

    3. Both use the same old historical analogy even when it fails to work in other circumstances. Radical leftists point to the success of Martin Luther King, failing to mention that he had a huge amount of moderate infrastructure behind him, and that even then he couldn’t expand his tactics to anti-war and anti-poverty activism. Neoconservatives analogize every struggle to World War Two, even when it’s a war of choice against a population that hasn’t undergone German-style discombobulation and even when they don’t offer anything approaching the Marshall Plan.

    4. Both tend to draw from the same pool of people. The leading intellectual neoconservatives used to be radical leftists holed in City College. David Horowitz’s politics were once left of Noam Chomsky’s. The focus is not so much on a specific cause as on general platitudes - freedom, democracy, equality, peace - combined with horrific methods of achieving them.

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 6:14 pm

  3. Mullah Cimoc wrote:

    Mullah Cimoc say

    this funny joke for ameriki: why all government in middle east forbid the intermarriage between of the turk and the kurd.
    ANSWER: BELOW

    BECAUSE THEM OFFSPRING BE KNOWN AS THE “TURDS”.

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 8:40 pm

  4. DavidC wrote:

    Alon,

    “the parallels between neoconservative arguments, either in the form The Commissar is rebutting or in the form David is advancing”

    I’m neither a neoconservative nor am I advancing a particular argument in this case. I was merely responding to the “we’re creating more terrorists argument,” which I find pointless.

    The rest of your comments are basically sweeping generalizations that I’m not sure apply even to a majority of those you are talking about.

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 9:10 pm

  5. Tyler DiPietro wrote:

    I’m neither a neoconservative nor am I advancing a particular argument in this case. I was merely responding to the “we’re creating more terrorists argument,” which I find pointless.

    That is a gross oversimplification of the point, which is that invading a country solely so that you can perpetually “fight the terrorists over there, so they don’t come over here” is a crappy and infeasible strategy. A war against Islamic extremists and terrorists hinges upon political victories, which in this case is influencing other countries toward our way of thinking and getting them to reject Islamism. Somehow I don’t think invading a country, wreaking havoc and then falling back on “okay, folks, sorry about all the chaos, but you make excellent human bait for the amorphous enemies we claim to be fighting here.”

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 9:27 pm

  6. Tyler DiPietro wrote:

    Sorry, correction [in brackets].

    Somehow I don’t think invading a country, wreaking havoc and then falling back on “okay, folks, sorry about all the chaos, but you make excellent human bait for the amorphous enemies we claim to be fighting here” [is going to do us much good in that area.]

    Posted 20 Feb 2007 at 9:28 pm

  7. DavidC wrote:

    “That is a gross oversimplification of the point, which is that invading a country solely so that you can perpetually “fight the terrorists over there, so they don’t come over here” is a crappy and infeasible strategy.”

    Is that why we invaded? Is anyone actually arguing that as a viable long-term strategy? I’m not. You are beating a strawman.

    Posted 21 Feb 2007 at 9:30 am

  8. Miriam wrote:

    The argument that our actions create more terrorists is akin to my mother’s belief that leaving food out of the refrigerator create cockroaches.

    Maybe if we left the Islamists alone they would leave us alone, as they did on Sept 11, 2001. Let’s keep a low profile just in case.

    Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 10:39 am

  9. commissar wrote:

    Miriam,

    There is a whole range of options in between “leaving them alone” and doing what we have done in Iraq.

    Posted 22 Feb 2007 at 11:57 am

« Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton
Republicans against the war »