Understanding terrorism

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public.

30 some years previous, people would say that surely a man as smart as Gen William Westmoreland really knew more about Vietnam than he was saying. Guess what. His simplistic lies about Vietnam WERE what he knew. Westmoreland just died last week still insisting the war could have been won if he was just given enough support.

Don't believe for a minute that leaders know more than they are saying. This administration would blame everything on Al Qaeda because that is their knowledge. Complexities such as Muslim Brotherhood don't play well in the minds of those who also assume the region can be fixed. For if the region was as complex as it really is, then the region cannot be fixed by simply forcing democracy down their throat. Since we are going to fix the region, then those complexities cannot exist. A self fulfilling prophesy?

Frontline recently laid out the politics of Lebanon. Literally most of the country, at one point, had rallied in Beirut’s Martyr Square. So would the party of Hararri become the new leading party? Of course not. If you did not see that Frontline piece; if your knowledge of Lebanon politics is simply Lebanon’s nationalism verses Syrian dominance, then you have no idea what those demonstrations were really about. If your definition of Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then you are listening to too many Rush Limbaugh types.

Iraq is no different. The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?

Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.

There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. Preconceived notions have now become bad reality. Our current leaders only got what they wished for because they had no idea what they really wanted. And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.

Ironic. If they considered bin Laden as so evil, then why do we still not send a single division to get him? Because these same leaders had no plans for the peace (no concept even of lessons from 500 BC), even Afghanistan is slowly returning to the Taliban. Exactly what happens when there is no comprehension of who is the enemy, why he is an enemy, and no strategic objective (and therefore no exit strategy).

The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:

The 19th century British fort that dominates the skyline above Qalat offers an easy reference point for low flying Apache helicopters heading for the America base near the town, the capital of Afghanistan's southern province of Zabul. Yet despite being backed by impressive foreign muscle, the government's control of Qalat barely reaches the city limits. ... Zabal remains Taliban country.

One year after America 'liberated' Afghanistan, still the promised water system was not even restored. IOW just like in Iraq, America had no plans for the peace. As a result, even the Arab Crescent (an Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) will not go in one half of Afghanistan's proviences. That much of the country has now been taken back by the Taliban since America had no plans (just a lot of talk) for the peace.

BTW, since our leaders had no idea of how Afghanistan works, well, where is the strategic objective and exit strategy for Afghanistan? Sounds just like the same mistake made by the British in Afghanistan. Sounds just like the exact same mistake made by these same leaders in Iraq. Ask yourself what will be the strategic objective when America attacks Iran and N Korea? Or will we the people have finally learned the lessons from Vietnam? We still don't even understand who the enemy is in Iraq. And our leaders apparently don't know it either. For if our leaders had any knowledge, then they would be admitting that Iraq is only becoming worse. (UT should be asking for numbers for that statement).