Monday, July 11, 2005
The London Bombings
I've deliberately held off on commenting on the terrorist bombings in London. I did not want my comments to suffer from getting caught up in the emotions of the day. Anyone that knows me, knows that London holds a special place in my heart, having studied there as an undergrad. Also, I don't feel I have anything terribly original to add. But here are my assorted thoughts:
- All evidence points to the Iraq War making us less safe. It has "provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own." And the CIA says, "Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists."
- It provides me no joy to be vindicated in joining the rest of the reality-based community in denouncing the flypaper theory. Sadly, this strategy has done nothing to protect us, and iproponentsnts are still in charge. In a just world, anyone who supported flypaper would be fired, or laughed out of town.
- Dumbest media response: the "can it happen here?" stories.
- Oh wait, scratch that. The dumbest media response came from our friends at Fox, of course.
- Why don't the terrorist bombings in Baghdad generate the same attention and sympathy? At least 45 were killed there on Sunday.
- Tom Friedman is right that there should be a more vocal denunciation of terrorism by Muslim leaders. At the same time, there should be a more vocal denunciation of war by Christian and Jewish leaders. All religions are ostensibly pro-peace. It's time they all begin acting like it.
Comments:
<< Home
Ned, you mention motivation.
I cannot say whether the world is safer now then it was before or if over-all safety has changed in either direction.
But I can say that the Iraq War has motivated individuals who were previously 'unmotivated.' I don't think anybody can argue with that fact. Maybe you can say we are 'detaining' or 'killing' more of these motivated individuals, but at the very least, we have made more people angry and upset.
To make an analogy to a marketing campaign, (my apologies if this is too insensitive of an analogy.)
If Microsoft came out with some far reaching rules on how nobody could use Mozilla Firefox on MS Windows, that would upset a large number of individuals. Maybe Microsoft is able to sway Firefox usage and lower it's marketshare. If people switch, they'll be upset and angry towards Microsoft. Microsoft would actually be 'breeding' resentment towards their company and product even though they gained marketshare. It would give incentive for individuals to make a competing product against Microsoft on the hopes that people will switch because of their resentment to Microsoft.
I think that's is what is happening with the Iraq war. We are breeding resentment, creating motivation. This is resentment that did not exist 5 years ago. I don't think the concept of terrorism can ever be eradicated from this world, whether that's Ted Kaczynski or Osama Bin Laden. However, hopefully we keep the 'motivation' low for people like that to plan an attack. In the case of Ted Kaczynski, that may have been harder. But in the case of al-qaeda, I think we are giving plenty of reason for them to recruit more young 'soldiers.' Individuals that would not have made that choice 3 years ago.
I cannot say whether the world is safer now then it was before or if over-all safety has changed in either direction.
But I can say that the Iraq War has motivated individuals who were previously 'unmotivated.' I don't think anybody can argue with that fact. Maybe you can say we are 'detaining' or 'killing' more of these motivated individuals, but at the very least, we have made more people angry and upset.
To make an analogy to a marketing campaign, (my apologies if this is too insensitive of an analogy.)
If Microsoft came out with some far reaching rules on how nobody could use Mozilla Firefox on MS Windows, that would upset a large number of individuals. Maybe Microsoft is able to sway Firefox usage and lower it's marketshare. If people switch, they'll be upset and angry towards Microsoft. Microsoft would actually be 'breeding' resentment towards their company and product even though they gained marketshare. It would give incentive for individuals to make a competing product against Microsoft on the hopes that people will switch because of their resentment to Microsoft.
I think that's is what is happening with the Iraq war. We are breeding resentment, creating motivation. This is resentment that did not exist 5 years ago. I don't think the concept of terrorism can ever be eradicated from this world, whether that's Ted Kaczynski or Osama Bin Laden. However, hopefully we keep the 'motivation' low for people like that to plan an attack. In the case of Ted Kaczynski, that may have been harder. But in the case of al-qaeda, I think we are giving plenty of reason for them to recruit more young 'soldiers.' Individuals that would not have made that choice 3 years ago.
Every expert opinion (the CIA, various academics, etc.) I've read, has concluded that the Iraq war has made us less safe. It has provided a training ground, as well as served as a rallying point for recruitment. And I've got to trust expert opinion over your opinion (you can't forget these golden oldies "Saddam's WMDs are in Syria" and "there's no way Rove talked to Cooper"). Sorry if that comes off like a cheap shot, but your past record of analysis is highly questionable.
The attacks in London certainly don't prove that the Iraq war has made us less safe. But the fact that the last two attacks were against our biggest partners in the coalition (Spain and UK) certainly leads me to believe that they were - at least in part - in response to the Iraq war.
The attacks in London certainly don't prove that the Iraq war has made us less safe. But the fact that the last two attacks were against our biggest partners in the coalition (Spain and UK) certainly leads me to believe that they were - at least in part - in response to the Iraq war.
1) Agreed
2) more than we're killing...which by all expert accounts is exactly what's occurring
3) Agreed
4) I'm glad you know why Spain was attacked. You ought to consider a different field of work though. Your terrorist-mind-reading capabilities would be of better use in the CIA than at your law firm.
5) So now you're conceding my point that Iraq has made us less safe? If it was possibly the straw that broke the camel's back...then it made us less safe.
6) Happy Iraqis posed us no threat to begin with. Their newfound happiness makes us no safer today than we were in March 2003. I also don't see how the presence of foreign troops in Lebanon has any impact on our safety. As for Libya, their agreement came as a result of negotiation and diplomacy. That's how normal people used to get stuff done all the time. There's no evidence that the agreement came because we went batshit insane and invaded Iraq.
7, er 8) Yes, that 80% were indeed gullible fools. But you took it to the next level and said that the weapons were moved to Syria. I never heard one Dem make that claim.
Post a Comment
2) more than we're killing...which by all expert accounts is exactly what's occurring
3) Agreed
4) I'm glad you know why Spain was attacked. You ought to consider a different field of work though. Your terrorist-mind-reading capabilities would be of better use in the CIA than at your law firm.
5) So now you're conceding my point that Iraq has made us less safe? If it was possibly the straw that broke the camel's back...then it made us less safe.
6) Happy Iraqis posed us no threat to begin with. Their newfound happiness makes us no safer today than we were in March 2003. I also don't see how the presence of foreign troops in Lebanon has any impact on our safety. As for Libya, their agreement came as a result of negotiation and diplomacy. That's how normal people used to get stuff done all the time. There's no evidence that the agreement came because we went batshit insane and invaded Iraq.
7, er 8) Yes, that 80% were indeed gullible fools. But you took it to the next level and said that the weapons were moved to Syria. I never heard one Dem make that claim.
<< Home
