US grows Al Qaeda, all to plan

[cyberianpan]

Daily Telegraph

US wars have helped al-Qa'eda, says report
American military intervention in Muslim countries has bred a generation of "angry young men" vulnerable to al-Qa'eda recruitment, a report from a leading security analysis group has said.

The Senlis Council, which has an extensive network of researchers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, said frustration with war and unemployment was underpinning the insurgency against western forces.

The Military-Industrial complex in the US is doubtless delighted with this turn of events as it will mean even more taxpayer's dollars for themselves. Does the IIrish Government have any opinion on this folly ? Or are they just happy to see the likes of Halliburton get the cash and us take the risk ?

Bertie was chasing his medal from the US (and probably angling for a yacht as well) - does Cowen have an opinion ?

cYp

[taylorwemyss]

If the U.S. really wanted to win, they would use nukes, or at least increase propaganda to urge people to not become radical Muslims.

[Thac0man]

I am not sure about the idea that American policy has radicalised Muslims and hence helped promote terrorism. Casting my mind back, during the Thatcher era there were a few very well attended marches in London demanding the creation of a Muslim state within Britain. I doubt such numbers would turn up now. I have been looking for a link on line of these pre-internet protests, but I cannot find one. But they did happen and Muslims in the UK (Especially the Muslim council) pretending that they did not is a bit of trickery. Organised Political and insular Islam has been present in the UK since the 1980's. Why it has not grown at the same pace as Muslim immigration into the UK is a question none have bothered to address.

Just prior to the invasion of Iraqi we in the West discovered political Islam, because it was important to America, but we cannot pretend it did not already exist. I believe the end of the cold war and the subsequent rise of political Islam are linked. Events we are seeing now are not in fact a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. Many of these events are only linked through our association of US policy with them, when in fact they are regional and nothing to do with 'global Jihad'.

But here we have another oxymoron of the "War on Terror". Some insist that Al Queda does not exist as an organisation and even recently here someone tried to make that case. Fine. However any radical Muslim group linking their struggle to the Al Queda franchise usually existed before 9/11 and ultimitly have limited or localised aims. Therefore how much can we attribute to US post 9/11 policy as much as we can to the results of imperialist and cold war fallout?

The US consistantly finds their policy is causing radicalisation and we tend to accept this. But here again is an oxymoron. The US's policy track record in the Middle East shows that they are consistantly clueless. From Truman onto Carter and through to Regan and Clinton. So the US bones up on the Middle East, because suddently they have to, and suprise suprise they find there are some pretty wide spread problems in the Middle East. In fact a wide range of problems that only now they have become aware of as they come under the blanket policy the US arbitrarily deployed as the "War on Terror".

This new American view suits a few peoples own agenda. Those who attribute all the world ills to America have the entire problem of Muslim radicaisation wrapped up in yet another neat anti-American argument.

Radical Muslims and Political Islamics have glamerous recognition that they are taking on a world super power, and while they remain 'undefeated' can claim victory.

Then of course Americans, who whether out of intentions good or ill get to view the entire problems of radical Islam as portaining selfishly to themselves which suits their traditionally insular view. As usual the American tendacy to monopolies an issue is having a negitive effect.

And of course Europe, who are more than happy to see American take the blame and absolve Europeans of any wrong doing, interferance or post-Imperial botching.

And lets not forget the Arab nations, who are more than happy to see America pump funds, political support and ask no questions to help them fight problems that actually existed long before American even knew they existed.

All happily endirse the US findings as its bequeths upon them self importance, justification or validation.

In the final analysis, the only nations that look in danger are those (like Pakistan) that have had to about face on the decades old practice of allowing radicals to vent their rage over their borders so it was someone elses problem and they did not have to deal with it. We in Europe have to face the existing problem linked to mass immigration in a new light after completely failing to recognise it prior to 9/11. In being able to blame the US, Europeans have blithly carried on with near disasterous policies that are now baring fruit and we wish to take no credit for. I have no doubt that political Islam seems to be on the rise, but what we may infact be seeing is a new phase of politics in Muslim nations where the monoploy of force by the state is no longer uncontested. But those contesting forces have only come in sharper focus now that an 'end game' is desirable or even possible with US aid. We are seeing the end of the internal status que that has propped up regimes in Muslim countries since their post WWII independance.

[Sucker Punch]

I don't know weather to compliment your dedication to the topic or bemoan your lethargic commentary. I suppose a simpler conclusion could be arrived at by using three words or rahter three letters.

[O]peration [I]raqi [L]iberation.

Political Islam or Islamic nationalism, is to imperialism as immune systems are to infections. We saw this when the British Empire were thrown out of Iraq and we are again witnessing a repeat of history.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18036

[Universal_001]

If the U.S. really wanted to win, they would use nukes, or at least increase propaganda to urge people to not become radical Muslims.

One of the Republican presidential no hopers suggested that if the US was attacked by a dirty bomb (the plausibility of which is questionable) or a nuke they should nuke Mecca and Medina in retaliation

That would turn 100s of new recruits into millions.
The use of nuclear weapons as first use is immoral, and totally ineffective when fighting terrorism.

I've often wonderd if the US actually WANTED this situation, think about it, going into Iraq Rummy was told they needed 500 000 troops to be able to easily secure the country, he ignore them and went with less than half that, he was either deluded or intentionally handicapped the operation, there would have been alot less violence, and thus alot less recruitment to terrorism, with the country properly secured.

OBL's stated objective with 9-11 was to drag the US into "bleeding wars" on Muslim soil, to get more recruits for his impossable dream of an Islamic Caliphate, in that respect, the US gave him exactly what he wanted.
So the neo-cons win by keeping Americans scared to hold onto power (because without security they have nothing else)
OBL wins by getting more people for the cause..

[polito123]

fighting for peace is like ************************ing for virginity stole that from another p.ie contributor, thot it was v good thou.

History has taught us absolutely nothing.

[pikey]

fighting for peace is like ************************ing for virginity stole that from another p.ie contributor, thot it was v good thou.

History has taught us absolutely nothing.

or if you prefer "If history teaches us anything its that history teaches us nothing" nicked that somewhere too!

[Stroke]

War on Terrorism my áras. Disaster Capitalism creating new and maintaining existing markets to maximize future revenue streams.....

[cferrie]

Conspiracy theories and post rational analysis are all very good but I'm afraid what it really boils down to is plain old incompetence.

[cyberianpan]

Conspiracy theories and post rational analysis are all very good but I'm afraid what it really boils down to is plain old incompetence.

Perhaps ... though in this instance: they had no need to attack Iraq... WMD were a pretext ... oil even made no sense

Only good reason to attack Iraq was to get a good old war going, then the occupation got nice and hot and revitalised Al Quaeda (whereas the same forces as were in Iraq oughta been in Afpakistan snuffing out Al Quaeda).

The simplest explanation on this one is the paranoid war machine/military industrial complex wanted some action. This is what Eisenhower warned about and begged the US to avoid when he left office.


cYp