Amman Bombings Reflect Zarqawi’s Growing Reach
Triple suicide bombings in Jordan this week marked a breakthrough for Islamic guerrilla leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in his efforts to expand the Iraqi insurgency into a regional conflict and demonstrated his growing independence from the founders of al Qaeda, according to Arab and European intelligence officials.
Zarqawi, 39, has sought for years to overthrow the monarchy in his native Jordan. But since he emerged over the past two years as the best-known leader of the insurgency in Iraq, his success in rallying Islamic extremists from other countries to fight U.S. forces there has enabled him to extend his reach and influence, officials and analysts say. His guerrilla network, they say, has established roots in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
“This is really alarming, if Zarqawi is able to carry out these kind of attacks in Jordan and if Iraq is able to become the headquarters for terror attacks in the region,” said Mustafa Alani, senior policy analyst for the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. “We’re talking about the emergence of another Afghanistan.”
Just yesterday, there was a story about how even Zarqawi’s home town was divided in their feelings about the savagery and futiliy of his bombing the other day.
Today, he’s on the rise. Bias, anyone?
Not here, not us.
And, if Iraq turns into another Afghanistan, then the military will pound the crap out of them, too.
Yes, Frank, if Iraq turns into another Afghanistan I’m afraid we’ll have no choice but to invade Iraq and topple its current leasdership … oh, wait …
You mean the way they got rid of the Taliban and restored order to the whole country? Last I heard, there’s no more clan violence in Afghanistan, no more heroin production, and women are as free as they are in the U.S. (pending Supreme Court appointments notwithstanding).
Oh, wait, that was on Fox News and CNN. In the real world, Afghanistan is a clusterf-ck (especially outside of Kabul). All that “pounding” has done little except remove the Taliban from nominal power, kill lots of innocent people, and turn the country over to people just as bad as the Taliban.
Iraq won’t be another Afghanistan, no matter what “Zarqawi’s home town” has to say. Iraq is already worse, and thanks to the Bushies it isn’t going to get any better soon. The “savagery and futility” of the insurgency, while it hasn’t used as much firepower and may not have killed as many civilians or destroyed as much critical infrastructure as “Shock and Awe,” is having an effect. It is widening the terms of the civil war that the U.S. started when it illegally removed the Saddam Hussein regime.
I’m sorry, didn’t mean to spoil your glorifying of Dear Leader’s exploits. By all means, keep clapping more loudly.
Let me polish that up
Actually, no.. But I don t see any reason to exercize myself when none of you has had an original alternative to the Bush / Rumsfeld / CENTCOM since early 2002.
Your thinking seems to have occupied a very small continuum from Is this really a good idea? to We should get out of there now.
Your strategy for fighting Terror on a global scale seems to revolve around inviting various and sundry non – Israeli Semites to tea.
There, that’s it…
It s hard to debate a non – subject.
And, by the way, Corrigan, I guess the illegality is evidenced by all the protesting around the world to put him back in office. Even the Loony (Sheehan) Left isn’t touching that. Where’s the ACLU when you need them?
Yuk,yuk.
Actually, no.. But I don’t see any reason to exercize myself when none has had an original alternative to the Bush / Rumsfeld / CENTCOM since early 2002.
Your “thinking” seems to have occupied a very small conyinuum from “Is this really a good idea?” to “We should get out of there now.”
Your strategy for fighting Terror on a global scale seems to revolve around various and sundry non – Israeli Semites to tea.
It’s hard to debate a non – subject.
Frank does indeed straw man much. Why just yesterday Frank read a story that, while he can’t be bothered to provide a link to it, he feels free to use today as the basis for a cheap shot at OW and WaPo.
Frank,
Straw Man, much?
Staying in Afghanistan to finish the job would have been a good idea. A vast majority on the left supported and would continue to support an extended stay in Afghanistan. Staying OUT of Iraq would have allowed that to happen.
Your comments, while charming, do nothing to address the fact that Iraq – before the U.S. invasion – posed absolutely no threat to the United States of America. No WMD, no Al Qaeda. Now, however, it’s flooded with insurgents who’ll benefit from “on the ground” training in combat and battlefield coordination against U.S. forces. They’ll take that training and export it to our shores. Just as they have in London, and now Jordan. It’s only a matter of time.
Sorry, those who support the war in Iraq are wrong. Just plain wrong. You’ve only made things worse.
Btw, are things so simplistically black and white in your little conservative imagination that our only two responses to the 9/11 attacks were 1) “twiddle our thumbs” or 2) start a clusterfuck war in Iraq?
I have a better idea, let’s stay here at home, twiddle our thumbs, and read The Nation,and have a whine and moan party in Bush’s honor. Oh, wait.. They’re already doing that at DailyKos and DU…
Sigh.
Oh, yes:
We could have effectively ended AQ in Afghanistan. What s more, by developing that country we could have demonstrated to the region and the world the benefits of democracy.
Is that “could have” as in “might have”?
Actually, fighting terrorism is rather complex in that we don t really have a military that s organized and trained to do so effectively.
But the first rule to fighting terrorism is to go after the terrorists
Lemme get this straight: we don’t have a military that’s organized or trained to do so effectively (even though they’ve been urban / street fighting since 1944), but “Lieutenant General Jadegold” is going to tell us the first rule of fighting terrorists is “to go after the terrorists”. Pretty much the way cops go “after the criminals”? And we see how well that works — crime has been reduced to zero, hasn’t it?
Try this — Iraq is like a big lasso, with thousands of terrorists inside. And we are tracking them and shooting them!
We’re taking casualties at a rate of about 1 to 10, in other words, we are beating them.
Let me tell you what I know about terrorists — the more of them you kill, the more desperate they become. Thus, another wedding bombing in Jordan. This one may have backfired, though. Perhaps terrorists are as stupid as the average criminal.
By the way, I’m sure DoD has a suggestion box; go check it out.
Hehe
The resignation that was refused, for reasons you would never understand…
I tried to find a news story from yesterday, but, lo and behold, it’s gone. “Memory hole,” anyone?
I did find this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1866357,00.html
The reason why I don t see any reason to exercize myself is because none of you has had an original alternative to the Bush / Rumsfeld / CENTCOM since early 2002.
This “Rumsfeld plan” you speak of, is that the same plan that – once carried out and demonstrated as the failure of imagination and planning that it truly is – TWICE compelled it’s author to turn in his resignation?
Lemme get this straight: we don t have a military that s organized or trained to do so effectively (even though they ve been urban / street fighting since 1944)
Urban warfare and terrorism are two separate and distinct things, Frankie.
No, we don’t have a military that’s designed for effectively fighting terrorism; OTOH, we have a great military for defeating conventional military forces. In fact, I’d take it a step further and assert conventional US military forces have a role in combatting terrorism but most of the heavy lifting involves police work–cutting off finances, identifying and infilitrating cells, etc.
Of course, this isn’t just my opinion–it’s also an opinion shared by most of the Pentagon. That’s why they’ve coined the phrase ‘asymmetrical warfare.’
The resignation that was refused, for reasons you would never understand&
Yeah, I’m sure they involve complex mathematical equations and a deep understanding of Relational Quantum Mechanics. Every day you’re sounding more and more like the elitist snobs your comrades decry. Heh. Anyhow…
What is important is not that his resignation was refused, TWICE – that’s just shameful – but that Rumsfeld felt compelled to offer it. Twice.
The fact that Bush, a man now famous the world over for his lack of leadership and unabashed cronyism, refused to make the right choice is not suprising in the least. That you’re talking points have now deteriorated to the point where you have to defend these people by saying “you wouldn’t understand”…isn’t suprising either. It’s just sad.
Curmudgeon, did you ever hear of a conditional clause?
The reason why “I don t see any reason to exercize myself” is because “none of you has had an original alternative to the Bush / Rumsfeld / CENTCOM since early 2002.”
But I don t see any reason to exercize myself…
So, in other words, you’re too chickenshit to explore the true consequences inherent in the actions your administration has taken in Iraq? No suprise there, since that’s how we got in this mess in the first place.
an original alternative
Actually, fighting terrorism is rather complex in that we don’t really have a military that’s organized and trained to do so effectively.
But the first rule to fighting terrorism is to go after the terrorists. We didn’t do that by invading Iraq. It’s akin to losing your wallet in a dark alley; it makes no sense to walk a block away and look for it on a well-lit street.
We could have effectively ended AQ in Afghanistan. What’s more, by developing that country we could have demonstrated to the region and the world the benefits of democracy.
Jadegold,
Amen. Unfortunately that solution doesn’t involve sending other people’s children off to die, needlessly, is the dusty streets of Iraq. It doesn’t involve puffing up one’s chest and prancing around like a peacock on internet forums and it doesn’t involve magnetic ribbons and catchy country music tunes.
Where’s the fun in that? Winning is overrated anyhow. Right Frank?
Jadegold the Putz: Of course, this isn t just my opinion it s also an opinion shared by most of the Pentagon.
And you’ve interviewed them when?
We do have a military that learns faster “on the ground” than you obviously give them credit for.
The idea that “we don t have a military that s designed for effectively fighting terrorism; OTOH, we have a great military for defeating conventional military forces,” is so 1960’s. Where the hell have you been?
BTW, for the record, asymmetrical warfare* doen’t mean “terrorists win, big, American armies lose.”
curmudgeon: Yeah, I m sure they involve complex mathematical equations and a deep understanding of Relational Quantum Mechanics. No, they involve “loyalty” and “recognition of talent.”
Like I said, things you wouldn’t understand.
* from Asymmetric Warfare, the Evolution and Devolution of Terrorism: The Coming Challenge For Emergency and National Security Forces
By: Clark L. Staten, Executive Director & Sr. Analyst, Emergency Response & Research Institute :: 04/27/98
{ Note the Date }
You’re not Clark Staten, are you JG the Putz?
Furthermore, every time Frank (or some other conservative clone) trots out the ole’ busted line “Well, your side didn’t have a better plan?!” – which belies the fact that MY side wasn’t holding all three branches of government during the 9/11 attacks, nor had the opportunity to effective influence policy thereafter – it’s a tactic admission that their plan is a failure.
Every. single. time.
effective = effectively
Curmudgeon: No. it. is. not. (By the way, I think you meant tacit, not tactic)
What it means is that, none on the left has been able to even suggest what might be done.
This implies to me that you don’t know what to do, you just want to keep on screeching, “People are dying! People are dying!”, as if that’s a “solution” to anything.
If it’s a cop out to say “Anything is better than nothing,” then what is it to say, “Doing nothing is better than what you’re doing”?
We do have a military that learns faster on the ground than you obviously give them credit for.
You see, Frankie, you don’t want to them “learning on the ground;” that’s what gets a lot of troops killed. You want them going into a combat situation already trained, organized, and equipped to perform the mission.
Frankie, war isn’t a game that you just throw bodies into and hope they adjust.
BTW, for the record, asymmetrical warfare* doen t mean terrorists win, big, American armies lose.
No, and asymmetrical warfare also doesn’t mean terrorism–although terrorism can be a component of asymmetrical warfare. But the fact is our forces are ill-designed for asymmetrical warfare, Frankie.
Wasn’t General Haig’s plan in WW1, as outlined in Blackadder, that “we’d just have General Haig, Mrs. Haig, and the Haig’s dog colin left, and then we will have won!”
This whole ‘we kill ten for every 1 of ours that dies’ seems similar. Bear in mind there are millions of Iraqis, so a 10% occupation force would be required.
The title of Oliver’s post should have been “Bush Begets Zarqawi”
is going to tell us the first rule of fighting terrorists is to go after the terrorists . Pretty much the way cops go after the criminals ? And we see how well that works crime has been reduced to zero, hasn t it?
Now we get a glimpse into the lack of critical thinking that ‘informs’ Frank’s political mind. Great analogy, Frank. Our jails are full (we have nearly one percent of our population behind bars, the highest rate of any industrial democracy) because we insist on locking people up for nonviolent personal choices (’drug war’, anyone). Our cops are busy chasing pot smokers and peddlers, and playing an endless game of whack-a-mole against the drug du jour. A pot peddler gets life, while a child rapist is out in less than a sawbuck.
The Bushies’ fight against ‘terror’ is even less efficient. The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks quickly went from World Public Enemy No. 1 to being tactically forgotten. Instead of pursuing the ‘terrists’, the Bushies invaded a country that clearly posed a threat to no one. Now bin Laden is still loose, and a new generation of militants is rising out of the ashes of Iraq. Nice going, Dubya! Maybe you could pay Halliburton to build more prisons. Oh, done that!
We re taking casualties at a rate of about 1 to 10, in other words, we are beating them.
Oh, the body counts. A war of attrition again? Amen, bryan; that worked great in Vietnam.
And finally:
I guess the illegality is evidenced by all the protesting around the world to put him back in office. Even the Loony (Sheehan) Left isn t touching that. Where s the ACLU when you need them?
I’m sorry, was that another lame-ass right-wing attempt at sarcasm? I thought Dubya didn’t listen to ‘focus groups.’ If he did, maybe he’d have listened to the millions of marchers worldwide who protested before he launched his illegal, ill-advised war. Saddam Hussein isn’t important; how the putative “leader of the free world” behaves is. I don’t need the ACLU to tell me that “wrong is wrong, no matter who says or does it.”
The Left’s policy after 9-11 was very simple: Chase Bin Laden to the ends of the earth and bring him to justice. If that meant invading Afghanistan, so be it. I believed we knew for a fact that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. We asked the Taliban to turn him over. They refused. Tough luck for them. The Dem policy was simple, straight forward and doable. It also had the added benefit of being a bipartisan policy supported by most of the rest of the world.
In conjunction with this aggressive military policy, the Dems had aother simple ideas for a complex problem. They wanted to beef up homeland security and so the Dems even proposed the creation of a new department specifically devoted to protecting Americans here at home. I believe they called it the Department of Homeland Security.
The Dems also called for an investigation into the events of 9-11. The Dems wanted to know what went wrong so that in the future we could better prevent terrorist attacks on American soil.
The Dems also proposed that we get more aggressive on the law enforcement front, proposing new money for the FBI and CIA while increasing our cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies to freeze terrrorist assets and dry up their money supply.
The Dems proposed increases in foreign aid targeted to supporting moderate Islamic leaders and democratic activists around the world. The Dems called for tougher sanctions and inspection regimes against rogue states such as Iraq, Iraq and North Korea. The Dems proposed a plan to buy back Russian nuclear stockpiles and uranium to ensure that they woudl never reach the hands of terrorists. They called for an increased international effort to contain the flow of conventional and non-conventional arms around the world.
All these things and more the Dems called for and we know what happened. Bush went into Afghanistan but quickly shifted his attention to Iraq allowing Bin Laden to get away while opening up a substabtial space for Zarqawi to emerge and expand his operations. The Republicans took over and took credit for establishing the Department of Homeland Security only to exploit the fear of terror for political purposes and to hand over the protection of Americans to cronies and incompetents. The fought the 9-11 commission, then allowed it, then played politics with its results and have yet to follow through on many of its most significant recommendations. Bush has alienated many of our most significant allies. They have twisted the idea of international intelligence gathering and law enforcement cooperation into a secret prison system. Bush has forever stained America’s reputation by giving tacit approval to torture. Then they pulled us out of nuclear proliferation treaties and proposed the development of a whole new class of tactical nuclear weapons, sending a horrible single to rogue regimes around the world. Here at home, the Republican pushed through legislation that makes it okay for the FBI to conduct gather and keep private information about law abiding citizens without any kind of judicial oversight. The result? Global terrorism has increased and America is more isolated than it has ever been.
So you see, the Dems had a plan post 9-11. Bush and the Republicans went another way and fucked everything up. So when you say the Dems don’t have a plan now, what you really mean is that the Dems don’t have a plan now to fix the disaster that the Republicans have unleashed on the country and the world. There’s a difference. So now that the Republicans have shit themselves, what’s the Dem plan to change their diapers? Well, first we have to get the Republicans to quit bawling and stop squirming around, because they’re only making things worse.
If it s a cop out to say Anything is better than nothing, then what is it to say, Doing nothing is better than what you re doing ?
You keep missing the point. Let me put it as simply as I can: Afghanistan, not Iraq. Israeli-Palestinian resolution, not Iraq.
No one on my side has EVER argued that “doing nothing is better than what you’re doing.” But you bring up an interesting point. I think the abysmal planning, implementation and execution of this administration’s plan becomes apparent when one takes into consideration that one could probably make a fairly strong argument that doing nothing, would have been, in fact, better that what we are currently doing.
Now, slow down…I’m not advocating a “do nothing” policy. I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate, by saying the negative implications of the actions taken by this administration FAR outweigh the negative implications inherent in a potential “do nothing” policy. I know you’ll use this as some sort of evidence that “the left” really wants to sit around in drum circles with Al Qaeda, but it’s worth point out the following:
- By all accounts, FBI, CIA, DoD have stated the fact that fundamentalist recruitment has increased as a direct result of our actions in Iraq.
- Saddam was one of the most secular leaders in the Muslim world. Our actions in Iraq have opened this nation up to the influence of their neighboring Iranian theocracy.
- Terrorists are now able to use the chaotic environment of Iraq for the purposes of training and armament. Gaining valuable and deadly experience that is sure to be exported to our shores.
- Our Army is bogged down and most likely would not be able to appropriately deal with actual and viable threats in the future.
- Our National Guard forces are spread so thin that they can not adequately deal with domestic disasters (Katrina, etc)
- Bin Laden and his petty band of radicals have now been raised to the status of “equals” with American military might, as perceived in the Muslim world, when our policy should have been to minimize Al Qaeda’s threat, not trumpet and glorify it as Bush has in order to obtain re-election.
- Bush has justified “pre-emptive” warfare and has removed (realistically) any position our nation has to argue against it’s use against us.
- We have lost all standing around the globe, as a moral leader, and have instead, justified global fears of American Imperialism.
- We are spending record amounts of tax dollars to justify all these horrible outcomes.
There were, and are, plenty of other suggestions being made from my side of the aisle. Simply because you are too stubborn to hear them doesn’t mean they were not being made available. But if I was actually FORCED to ignore them, just as you have, and choose between Bush’s policy and this other mystical “doing nothing” policy you’ve made up…well, unfortunately, Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war against Iraq, always seemed so abysmally stupid to me, that that’s not as easy a choice as it should be.
Well, now that you have solved all our problems, I’ll say goodnight.
It’s simple: Jadegold starts calling me Frankie, for absolutely no reason whatever, I fold up my tent and go away.
Of course, rhys, I guess that makes us even, considering he called me “Frankie” first.
Frameone: There is no need for that shit, and no need for me to take it. Touchy? Call it what you will — I’ll mail you $.50, and you can call someone who gives a shit. I can’t get respect or demand respect, but I can leave the thread. Perhaps if you had the guts to use your real name, you might understand how I feel. Until then, save it.
“It s simple: Jadegold starts calling me Frankie, for absolutely no reason whatever, I fold up my tent and go away.”
Damn Frank, you are one touchy bastard.
And you called Jadegold “Jadegold the Putz”, Frank which is somewhat more loaded than “Frankie”. If you don’t like being called names, how about you do others the same courtesy? Lead by example and all that.
Frank, did you see my nice long obsencity free comment in response your suggestion that the left doesn’t have a plan? Maybe you did see it and others as well by other posters. What was your response: “I’m packing up and going home.” But then you didn’t. You came back for the flames that you say upset you so much. And really, “flame” is a little strong for my suggestion that you may be wound up a little too tight if the name “Frankie” bugs you.
I’m sorry you think you’re being hanged up on. This is an open forum is it not? We don’t have private chat rooms to slip off to for one on one debate. It’s all out there for anyone to jump in at any time right? Why do you feel compelled to always play the victim?
See, this is how you guys prove yourselves. This isn’t about debate, or even about your own opinions. This is about flaming — unnecessary, nonproductive flaming.
Jadegold feels the need to demean me, motivated by God knows what. Then you all line up to support him when I fight back. “He’s not wrong, I’m a ‘touchy bastard’; he started it, but I should ‘lead by example’”.
Do either of you have, at least, the guts to leave it alone, and leave it between Jadegold and me? Nope.
Comment to him?
God forbid…
Well, okay, it wasn’t obsenity free, but I did refrain from calling anyone names. Indeed, I didn’t even say your name, Frank. If that is your real name!!!!
What a tired old response: “Why you’re anonymous! You must not have the courage of yor convinctions!” Whatever. Click through my screen name to reveal the mystery! Oh and BTW way Frank, you’re right: you can’t demand respect. You have to earn it.
I don’t feel the need to share philosophies with you all. The fact of the matter is that if I stay around long enough to point out to someone (not you, frameone or you, rhys) things only get progressively worse, as you seek to lay the blame on me, and get even more defensive about yourselves.
So this “minor offense” is not why I want out of this thread; it’s because I know where it’s headed. As witness, your suggestion that Frank isn’t my real name.
1) If it wasn’t my real name, why would calling me “Frankie” bother me? It’s obviously designed to be demeaning and condescending. It is such a typical Jadegold “m.o.” that his intention is obvious.
2) You can click through my screen name, too, and see that, unless I’m lyiing about name over there, too, my name is splashed all over the place. Because I’ve never been concerned with calling you “framie” or some other similar nonsense,I’ve never bothered to click on your name.
3) Finally, I didn’t feel so much “ganged up on” in an emotional sense (what you call “playing the victim” I call “blaming the victim” [on your part]), as I did feel extremely pressured to respond to three posts totalling nearly 1500 words
I’ll tell you what: since you want to re – hash the whole history of the Ear in Iraq, I’m going to need some time to respond. I’ll just move “up”, or is it “down” to the other comments in “Iraq becomes Terror Central”
“I don t feel the need to share philosophies with you all.”
Oh, thank God.
Try to rise above, Frank, just once try to rise above.
frameone: How clever! I’m cut to the quick!
Dipstick!
“I ll tell you what: since you want to re – hash the whole history of the Ear in Iraq, I m going to need some time to respond.”
Meanwhile how about a nice sidetrack about good internet etiquette?
Bryan, if you want to know about Internet etiquette, ask frameone. Perhaps he’ll teach you to rise above…