Secretary of State - Have you learned the lesson of the Iraq War.

jvquarterback wrote:

Quite hostile aren't you?

In case it's escaped your notice, I'm the one arguing against hostility.

I repeat - you are very aggressive and hostile with your opinions.



Again - what makes you the self proclaimed expert opinion here?



Please, impress me with your education and work experience in the field of terrorism.

jvquarterback wrote:

Define "guerrilla warfare actions" as you are using it. Either we're talking about different things, or you aren't aware of the Moro guerrilla actions against the US in the Philippines ca. 1900.

That's what happens when you begin colonizing places. What's going on now is no different than Native American resistance to Christian settlers in the Americas. The point is that when you antagonize people in their ancestral lands they aren't going to like you very much and it has nothing to do with their religion.

So does the Moro resistance qualify as a "guerrilla warfare action", or not? Your deflective response seems to indicate you agree that it does, but you seem preoccupied with not giving an inch. I'm honestly trying to make sense of your argument, but it's a moving target.

jvquarterback at 4:12pm on Tuesday wrote:
Number of guerrilla warfare actions against the US prior to CIA interventions in the ME during the 1940-50s: Zero.

jvquarterback at 10:57am on Wednesday edited what he wrote:
Number of guerrilla warfare actions against the US by jihadists prior to CIA interventions in the ME during the 1940-50s: Zero.

You still haven't defined what you mean by "guerrilla warfare actions" (or now "guerrilla warfare actions by jihadists") so we can analyze your claim. Care to clarify what your claim really is?



Rather than going back and revising your assertion without acknowledging it, you would have been better served with a response like this: "What I mean by guerrilla warfare actions is ___________________. That would include the Moro, of whom I was not previously aware. While that does change the dates in my previous assertion a bit, the underlying and more significant premise I was arguing remains intact, and is in fact supported by the example of the Moro -- Muslims have left the US alone when the US leaves them alone." Instead you panicked that you might look wrong on the internet and just muddled things for yourself.

The people of Mindanao, Jolo, and Basilan are who I referenced initially when I mentioned parenthetically that some argue the Islamic resistance in the Philippines orginated in 1900s. Just as the Native Americans resisted colonial expansion, so have the the people of Mindanao, Jolo, and Basilan and it has very little to do with religion.



My point is that what people now like to call terrorism are no different than guerilla warfare tactics against colonizers/occupiers and since the US didn't occupy or support the colonization of anywhere in the middle east prior to WWII on any significant scale (US support for the house of Saud began in the 1930s), there were no attacks against the US by people from the Middle East. Use whatever definition of terrorism or guerrilla warfare against the US you like if you wish to argue that point.



Here's another fact for you:

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq before US occupation: 0.

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq since the US occupation: >1800, 92% of which were directed at US personnel.

jvquarterback wrote:
Here's another fact for you:

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq before US occupation: 0.

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq since the US occupation: >1800, 92% of which were directed at US personnel.

This is one of Robert Pape's assertions that he has since had to qualify and walk back. The facts you present are true, but misleading without context.



Suicide bombing as a common tactic in terrorism did not exist prior to the 80s, less than a decade prior to the US involvement in 1991, so the "0" is only relevant in about a five-year span when the concept of suicide bombing was nascent, not for the centuries prior to 1980 when basically no one (other than Japanese in WWII) was using it as tactic.



As a new tactic, it is not surprising nor is there much to be derived from observing that it was absent in Iraq prior to 1991--it was absent in almost the entire world at that time. Furthermore, Iraqis were committing suicide bombings in Lebanon against US targets prior to 1991, so they were committing suicide attacks against US interests prior to the "occupation", just not in Iraq because we weren't there yet.

What about the relationship to guerrilla's performing suicide bombings prior to the moon landing vs after?

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
Quite hostile aren't you?

In case it's escaped your notice, I'm the one arguing against hostility.

I repeat - you are very aggressive and hostile with your opinions.



Again - what makes you the self proclaimed expert opinion here?



Please, impress me with your education and work experience in the field of terrorism.

In 1991 my father had just retired from the army, he told me my buddies and I who were thinking about joining the military so we could go kill ourselves some Iraqis to save some helpless Kuwaiti sheikhs were a bunch of idiots. I can't even remember what book or pamphlet he gave me but I read a little about the history of US intervention in the middle east. Not a lot but enough that I didn't join my buddies and was later skeptical of the motives of both civilian and military leaders during the Clinton subsequent Bush administrations.



After 2001 I began to regularly read antiwar.com which my Dad suggested (I haven't found a better collation of events whether you agree with them or not). I've probably spent at least an hour or two (often more) every week for the past 15 years reading that site as well plenty of other books (if I were you I'd start with the 9/11 report, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Carson Chalmers, and Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It by Robert Pape) and following military conflicts the US participates in around the world.



I'm no Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul, or Glen Greenwald, but I've tried to study "things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations." I'd invite you to do the same. BTW I have a great testimony of that scripture, obeying it just a little back in the early 1990s helped me a lot.

snoscythe wrote:

Here's another fact for you:

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq before US occupation: 0.

Number of suicide attacks in Iraq since the US occupation: >1800, 92% of which were directed at US personnel.

This is one of Robert Pape's assertions that he has since had to qualify and walk back. The facts you present are true, but misleading without context.



Suicide bombing as a common tactic in terrorism did not exist prior to the 80s, less than a decade prior to the US involvement in 1991, so the "0" is only relevant in about a five-year span when the concept of suicide bombing was nascent, not for the centuries prior to 1980 when basically no one (other than Japanese in WWII) was using it as tactic.



As a new tactic, it is not surprising nor is there much to be derived from observing that it was absent in Iraq prior to 1991--it was absent in almost the entire world at that time. Furthermore, Iraqis were committing suicide bombings in Lebanon against US targets prior to 1991, so they were committing suicide attacks against US interests prior to the "occupation", just not in Iraq because we weren't there yet.

Pape doesn't use 1991 as his start point, he uses 2003 (for Iraq) so how would you say Pape has walked back his assertion? The US kept no permanent occupying force in Iraq prior to 2003. How many suicide bomb attacks were perpetrated by Iraqis during that time? 0. How many afterward? >1800, greater than 90% of which were directed at an occupying force.



The previous statistic citing the lack of any attack on the US by anyone from the ME prior to US intervention beginning in the 1940s still stands.

So you're an isolationist who thinks the government oppresses and robs its citizenry. What a depressing world view.

SpiffCoug wrote:
So you're an isolationist who thinks the government oppresses and robs its citizenry. What a depressing world view.

Me and these other guys are so depressing.

George Washington wrote:
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.

James Madison wrote:
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other… No nation could reserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

and

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none

SpiffCoug wrote:
So you're an isolationist who thinks the government oppresses and robs its citizenry. What a depressing world view.

I wouldn't classify JV as an isolationist. I don't think he is saying withdraw from foreign affairs completely, as an isolationist would. I think there is a lot of merit to his arguments that our Middle Eastern actions, specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have brought more heat on us by Jihadists. I had my doubts about those interventions in the first place. However, I do not believe that the attention of Jihadists is only as a result of those wars, though I have no doubt that, because of our geographic isolationism, if we packed up and stayed out of the Middle East, we would not have the same attention from extremists.



However, I don't think that completely solves the problem. As long as the U.S. supports Israel through foreign military sales and otherwise, we will have extremist attention to some degree or other. So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?



I don't think you are isolationist. I think what you are saying is that we should not meddle in other countries affairs, but trade with other countries is fine. But, I don't want to speak for you.

jvquarterback wrote:
The previous statistic citing the lack of any attack on the US by anyone from the ME prior to US intervention beginning in the 1940s still stands.

Oh, so now it's limited to attackers from the Middle East? Because that limitation isn't in your original assertion. This is why I keep asking you to pin down what your statement is, because every time inconvenient facts get in the way, you revise and claim you were right from the outset, which you have not been.

snoscythe wrote:

The previous statistic citing the lack of any attack on the US by anyone from the ME prior to US intervention beginning in the 1940s still stands.

Oh, so now it's limited to attackers from the Middle East? Because that limitation isn't in your original assertion. This is why I keep asking you to pin down what your statement is, because every time inconvenient facts get in the way, you revise and claim you were right from the outset, which you have not been.

Why would it be otherwise? Filipinos attack when we occupy the Philipines, Iraqis attack when we occupy Iraq, Saudis attack when we occupy Saudia. Cubans, Nicaraguans attack when they are occupied. Bostoners and New Yorkers attacked the English due to their occupation. I could list 50 native tribes that have done the same and still come up short on that list. It is the nature of man. To ignore it puts us at greater risk.



In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

jvquarterback wrote:
In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Apparently you, like al Qaeda, have the same definition of an occupying force - the mere presence of a single foreign troop in a foreign land. We did NOT "occupy" Saudi Arabia. We were NOT an invading force.



It was a convenient excuse bin Laden, Zawahiri and other Islamic terrorists used to excuse to their jihad. When all you need is an excuse it doesn't have be a good one or even a correct one. Any excuse will do.

SpiffCoug wrote:

In the early days of Qaeda, >90% of members were from countries occupied by the US (even though their major bases of operations were in countries not occupied by the US - ie they had a hard time recruiting locally). Qaeda numbers have swelled but the percentage of members coming from countries without an occupying US force has remained very stable.

Apparently you, like al Qaeda, have the same definition of an occupying force - the mere presence of a single foreign troop in a foreign land. We did NOT "occupy" Saudi Arabia. We were NOT an invading force.



It was a convenient excuse bin Laden, Zawahiri and other Islamic terrorists used to excuse to their jihad. When all you need is an excuse it doesn't have be a good one or even a correct one. Any excuse will do.

What you and I believe about occupation as a motivating factor doesn't matter one bit. What matters is what the occupied believe. From 1991-2002 the US kept 10-20,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. The first attack against that occupying force occurred in 1995/6 and US bases were moved to more remote locations still on the Arabian peninsula. Initially the fatwah called for attacking foreign troops only on the Arabian Peninsula, but when the US moved the troops to more remote locations in Arabia rather than abandon it entirely, the fatwah was extended to US targets abroad and we all know what happened subsequently.



10,000 US troops, even in the hinterlands of Arabia, is no small deal. Can you imagine the fury if the Chinese kept that many people in California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, even if the troops were in the middle of nowhere Nevada? I'd guess there would be bombings in Beijing every day, let alone the Chinese consulates in San Francisco and Los Angeles, even if the Chinese told us it wasn't an occupying force.



Part of the problem is we don't see these people as human beings capable of the same emotions and motivations we have.

I don't agree with everything that jvquarterback has posted in this thread, but I do agree with the majority. the biggest argument for GTHO out of the ME is the last 15 years of history. war war war. I don't have any kids who have known growing up without a war in the ME involving the US. the cost financially and in human life to the US has been staggering. I don't think all problems would be eliminated by completely withdrawing, but I think we would see a huge reduction in the ability to recruit new jihadists and likely the people of the ME would tackle their own problem of ISIS quickly. terrorism as we know it relies on US involvement for growth.



When I apply the situation in reverse, and if I felt that my liberty, country, religion, family were under attack I'd proudly wear the label of terrorist in an effort to turn that tide. Trump’s election, imo, was due to perceived reverse occupation (encouraged immigration with basically zero vetting process) and was a huge signal that people don't tolerate huge cultural shifts without antagonism. While not a politically correct view, deep down we are segregators. and when that segregation happens organically, i don't see it as a bad thing.

jvquarterback wrote:

So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?



What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Cougarfan87 wrote:
So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?

As long as you don't suggest we steal from our own people to give the Israeli military $4B worth of F-16s a year that would be fine.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

About as much as the French owed us 70 years after the American Revolution. None.

jvquarterback wrote:
There were plenty of politicians against the Iraq war in 2001.

Yes, and all democrats from the Bernie Sanders wing of that party. Maybe a larger proportion of the general public opposed the war, but in Congress you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside of the far left that didn't support it.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

So, I guess my question is, do you, JV, think as part of the withdrawal from Middle Eastern affairs the U.S. should abandon any involvement with Israel? Or to what extent should the U.S., if any, be involved with Israel?

We should trade freely with Israel. Beyond that we shouldn't be involved.

Does that include selling them F-16s or do you mean only commercial goods?

As long as you don't suggest we steal from our own people to give the Israeli military $4B worth of F-16s a year that would be fine.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
What responsibility, if any, do you think we have towards Israel since we were instrumental in forming the state of Israel post WWII?

About as much as the French owed us 70 years after the American Revolution. None.

I am for as much of a balanced budget as anyone out there. I asked about the jets because if we stopped supporting Israel by selling them weapons they would have a serious problem trying to defend themselves. But continuing the foreign military sales to Israel, we would not eliminate ourselves as a target. So, I don't think we can just end our interactions with Israel, but I do agree that a withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq, not arming rebels, etc. is probably the best course of action for the Middle East. The Bush doctrine doesn't work. They took two anomalies--Japan and Germany post World War II, and thought that it stood for the proposition that the military could remove powerful dictators, and replace them with a stable democracy. The problem is that Germany already had a history of democracy and Japan had a long history of a stable civil society. Aside from the real issue of interfering with other nations sovereignty, the Bush team did not consider the peculiarities of the Middle East when our country was thrown head long into war for the next decade plus.