Entry: Don't Underestimate the Terrorists Saturday, May 21, 2005



The biggest mistake we can make in the War on Terror is to underestimate our enemies. As we watch terrorists in Iraq increasingly target civilians, so-called "soft targets," it's tempting to think they're doing so merely out of frustration or sheer rage. While individual, low-level terrorists may even be dull-witted enough to think that blowing up innocent men, women and children advances their cause -- to enslave the world under fundamentalist Islam -- those who pull their strings are anything but stupid.

As the terrorists in Iraq switched their main focus from American military personnel to civilians, the Iraqis began to transfer their ire from the Coalition government to their own officials. It was tempting to breath a small sigh of relief, if only for the lessening of both American casualties and anti-American feelings. Even now, most people continue to wonder why the terrorists are so stupid as to attack innocent Iraqi civilians. Don't they realise that they're just turning public opinion against themselves?

Of course they realise. At least, their leaders do.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is anything but a stupid, mindless killer. In fact, he's a highly intelligent, extremely clever killer. He has been part of the terrorist movement in Iraq since before Saddam was removed from power, as Jordan's King Abdullah attested in a recent interview. "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain," Abdullah said. Zarqawi is a Jordanian, but Saddam apparently refused to turn him over to Jordan's government to answer for his attempted 1999 bombing of the Radisson Hotel in Amman. (Meanwhile, the Liberals still try to tell us that Saddam had no ties to international terrorism.) Zarqawi was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but has yet to serve his time.

Saddam sheltered Zarqawi when he fled to Iraq after Coalition forces destroyed his terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Now he leads the terrorists working to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy. Al-Qaeda has become so heavily invested in Iraq that beating the so-called "insurgency" there will strike a major blow to them. But is Zarqawi dumb enough to miss the fact that blowing up kids in Iraq's marketplaces is turning the populace not against each other, but against him and his terrorists?

In fact, he may be counting on it.

If Zarqawi and his merry band of thugs can drive the anti-terrorist feeling in Iraq to a fever pitch right before the next election, any candidate who promises to fight the terrorists will garner plenty of votes. A candidate perceived as capable of halting the attacks altogether would probably win in a landslide --even if that means making a deal with Zarqawi, instead of fighting him. Could the Iraqis be stampeded into accepting a candidate who's actually working with the terrorists?

We've already seen how an angry, panicked populace can be manipulated by terror and threats. The people of Spain voted for the candidate who promised to comply with al-Qaeda's demands to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq as part of his campaign. Although Jose Zapatero stood little chance of winning the 2004 election, the terrible terrorist attacks in Madrid helped bring him victory. Terror can be used to manipulate elections, even in a country with a history of democratic elections. How much easier will it be to push Iraqis into voting for a new strongman just to stop the attacks on Iraqi civilians? Is that what Zarqawi is trying to accomplish?

The most important job our forces in Iraq have over the next few months is counter-terrorist activities like Operation Matador, during which combined US forces killed over 125 terrorists and captured huge stockpiles of terrorist material. It is essential to break the back of the terrorists before Iraq falls under the sway of a new Saddam. If that happens, our efforts there will have been in vain.

   10 comments

skye
May 26, 2005   12:21 PM PDT
 

zarqawi is reported wounded, perhaps dead. His replacement has already been named, oh well, just another soon-to-be dead or captured terrorist.
Mark
May 27, 2005   07:29 PM PDT
 
Zarqawi is mostly irrelevant in Iraq and probably died many years ago.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said fighters associated with al-Qaeda and Zarqawi represent "a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

CIA review finds no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists

WASHINGTON - A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/9836114.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
JM
May 27, 2005   08:52 PM PDT
 
Poor Mark. You really should read the news stotries you link to before you post them. At least read beyond the headlines, even though about 90% of it is pure speculation and repetition of faint hopes that Saddam was an innocent lamb. The story says:

[A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment] said the report contained new details of al-Zarqawi 's prewar activities in Iraq, including the arrests in late 2002 or early 2003 of three of his "associates" by the regime.

"This was brought to Saddam's attention and he ordered one of them released," he said, providing no further details.

"What is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities," he said, including ordering Foley's killing.
skye
May 28, 2005   11:28 AM PDT
 

*SIGH*

They will believe ANYTHING to hold on to the hope that zarqawi and al-queda had no ties with saddam of his former government.

JM
May 28, 2005   12:31 PM PDT
 
Worse -- did you see the headline Mark here quoted? Liberals are trying to pretend that Saddam had no ties to ANY terrorist groups, because THAT -- not ties to al-Qaeda -- was one of the main reasons he was removed from power. Once again, they're trying to rewrite history. A brutal terror-supporting fascist tyrant was overthrown, and they DEFEND him.
Mark
July 31, 2005   12:06 PM PDT
 
WRONG AGAIN, YOU MORONS....


No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 16, 2004; 1:32 PM
There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Although Osama bin Laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with Iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to Hussein's secular government, and Iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel found in the first of two reports issued today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

Mark
July 31, 2005   12:09 PM PDT
 
MORE INFO FOR CONSERVATIVE IDIOTS....

Newsweek Magazine said “Bush Administration officials also have acknowledged that their information about Zarqawi’s stay in Baghdad is sketchy at best …. Senior U.S. officials acknowledged to NEWSWEEK within days of Powell’s speech that it was ‘unknown’ whether Saddam’s government helped arrange Zarqawi’s hospital stay in Baghdad or whether Iraqi intelligence had any contacts with him while he was in Baghdad.”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0625distorted.htm


---------

U.S. officials acknowledge that some top captured Al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, have told U.S. interrogators bin Laden vetoed a long-term relationship with Saddam because he did not want to be in the Iraqi leader’s debt.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0625distorted.htm

The 911 Commission said this about al-Qaeda in Iraq: "Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army." See link.

Now, why would Saddam want to work with Osama?

http://911.gnu-designs.com/Chapter_2.4.html

JM
July 31, 2005   10:11 PM PDT
 
Well, it's obvious you do not understand the difference between "Saddam had no ties to terrorists" and "Saddam did not directly participate in 9/11." For all their pretensions of intelligence and subtlety, Liberals really are like children to whom every little detail must be painstakingly explained. Quoting the WaPo's deliberate lie about the 9/11 Commission's report won't help you here, nor will statements from captured enemies outweigh years of investigations. Here, maybe some actual information about Saddam's ties to terrorism BEFORE 9/11 (when the media suddenly decided he didn't have them) might help you. Then again... probably not.
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html
Mark
August 3, 2005   08:28 PM PDT
 
Both the CIA and the 9/11 Commission said Saddam and Osama were not linked in any meaningful way. Iraqi intelligence met with Saddam's people and decided not to collaborate. Why do you continue to lie? Hell, most Americans agree Bush lied us into war. Are they "liberals" too? Bush will go down in history like the same fanatics who hysterically yell "Clinton killed Foster!" LMFAO!
JM
August 4, 2005   04:47 AM PDT
 
Why do Liberals think that repeating the same lies after they've been refuted will make them come true? Why are they so locked into their fantasy world that not even shoving facts in their faces can make a dent in their fanatical devotion to the "Bush lied" insanity? Mark is just one sad example of a large minority of maniacs whose hatred of President Bush has warped any ability they ever had to think critically and use logic.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments