Why the terrorists will not follow us home. Posted at the request of Maraya1969

[Monk06]

Original post can be found here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=835970&mesg_id=837835

“You make some very valid and interesting points. Here's a few more from a northern neighbour.

The reason that there have been no attacks
on US soil since 9/11 is that 9/11 was the
big kahuna.

Any terrorist attack post 9/11 would be an
anti-climax; a lunch bag letdown and most
importantly; strategically self defeating for
the Jihadis.

What did the Jihadis gain from 9/11? They
gained the presence of the entire inventory
of combat ready US troops, including reserves
and the NG in Afghanistan, Iraq.

They answered Bush's 'bring it on' bravado with
"No stupid. You bring it on."

That is why 9/11 was a, pardon the expression,
'brilliant' victory for the wahabis. They forced
Bushco to make a fundamental strategic mistake,
'never let the enemy choose the battlefield'

This military principle was first formulated in
Sung Sui's, The Art of War over two millennia ago.

Most recently Napoleon made it the center piece
of his conquest of Europe. He failed when he
broke this fundamental rule and invaded Russia.
The coup de gras was delivered at Waterloo when the
British forced him to play on the ground of their choosing
according to their battle plan.

The modern equivalent of this rule would be,
'never fight the enemy on their own turf'

Since Vietnam and with the weakness of Rumsfeld's
transformational war doctrine, which is grossly apparent
to everyone except Bush & Co, it appears the brain trust
on the Joint Chief of Staff are oblivious to Sung Sui's
wisdom or they are just plain stupid.

Repeating a failure is not a recipe for success or
as Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem with
the mind that created it."

[youngdem]

1. I'll play devil's advocate.

I think they would 'follow us home' and attack us, because Al Qaeda WANTS us there, because it helps them tremendously, and if they can discredit the left in this country to bait us into further self-destruction, by all means they will seek to do so.

For the same reason, I fear an attack next year before the election to get us President Giuliani and another 8 years of Iraqnam and worse.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. And what idiot would vote for the party that has completely ignored the security

of the 'homeland' and allows for a second 9/11? Oh, I know that at least 28% of our American brain trust would, but that's not enough to win an election.

[youngdem]

6. The same idiots that reelected the Simian after 9/11

:shrug:

[Monk06]

5. I would agree accept Bush has no intention of withdrawing troops before '08

and Giuliani has no intension of withdrawing them
afterward, in the unlikely event that he gets the
nomination and then goes on to win the election.

So the jihadis know they don't have to attack the
continental US. In fact it would be counter productive.
US troops won't leave because the game plan has been
a twenty year occupation from the start. Several generals
have actually cited this number and the US Embassy/Fortress
in Baghdad puts paid to that assessment.

The US policy since the PNAC brain trust took over has
been to establish a permanent secure US ground military
presence in the Middle East.

They've gone too far to back down now. The water is pouring
over the top of their hip waders and they still won't admit
that they have stayed into deep water.

[youngdem]

7. But if it looks like an anti-war Dem is gonna win and pull us out, that is incentive to attack

to attempt to scare the US public into voting for Ghouliani, and duping us into Iraq and possibly Iran, Syria and Pakistan (if he were to get serious about getting Bin Laden).

[Make7]

2. Let me see if I follow this....

9/11 achieved the terrorists' goal of bringing US troops to the Middle East for battle - so the terrorists could fight on their own turf.

If the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, there would be no terrorist attacks in America because they would for some reason no longer want to again draw US troops to the Middle East in order to fight them on their own turf.

Okay... I don't seem to follow it...

- Make7

[AuntPatsy]

4. Do you honestly believe that our being in Iraq is keeping this country safer?

If so how? I agree with the op, there goal, the one that was first stated was to destroy this country finacinaly and slay those evil Americans, if you don't believe such is succeeding with our being in Iraq your just not paying attention to the ever growing numbers of both death and debt.

[Monk06]

8. You are correct. You don't follow the argument. I'll try to put it in bullet points

BushCo Talking point

If we leave the Jihadis will take the battle
to US soil

Jihadi Response

The US has no intention of leaving. In the
meantime while US soldiers are in Iraq we
can bleed US ground forces to death at 10
troops a day for two years, twenty years or
........ forever.

Jihadi Conclusion

Why murder American civilians on US soil when
we have 130,000 soldiers we can target without
all the hassle of passports and airline tickets.

Summation

If US soldiers stay the Jihadis can feast on the
blood of US soldiers and their own domestic enemies
at minimal cost in money and manpower.

If US troops leave we can take over the government and
destroy our enemies. (Note: this last statement is true
for both the Shia and Sunni militia/gangs)

Stay or leave this war is a win win for arab fundamentalists

[Make7]

15. The logic still doesn't make sense to me.

 

gbrooks wrote:

BushCo Talking point

If we leave the Jihadis will take the battle to US soil

That is what they are saying - if the troops leave Iraq, the terrorists will attack on American soil. So far, so good.

gbrooks wrote:

Jihadi Response

The US has no intention of leaving. In the meantime while US soldiers are in Iraq we can bleed US ground forces to death at 10 troops a day for two years, twenty years or ........ forever.

Jihadi Conclusion

Why murder American civilians on US soil when we have 130,000 soldiers we can target without all the hassle of passports and airline tickets.

This is where you lose me. The talking point is that when the troops are withdrawn they will attack American soil, but you are arguing that there is no reason to attack America when they have all the troops in the Middle East already.

I am just assuming that if the troops are withdrawn from Iraq, then they are no longer targets in Iraq.

gbrooks wrote:

Summation

If US soldiers stay the Jihadis can feast on the blood of US soldiers and their own domestic enemies at minimal cost in money and manpower.

If US troops leave we can take over the government and destroy our enemies. (Note: this last statement is true for both the Shia and Sunni militia/gangs)

Stay or leave this war is a win win for arab fundamentalists

If there were no longer US troops fighting on the terrorists' turf, what would prevent the terrorists from conducting another attack on America in an attempt to get the US troops to return to the terrorists' turf?

In the opening post, you seemed to be arguing that one of the goals of 9/11 was to draw US troops into battle on the enemies turf. For example:

gbrooks wrote:

What did the Jihadis gain from 9/11? They gained the presence of the entire inventory of combat ready US troops, including reserves and the NG in Afghanistan, Iraq.

They answered Bush's 'bring it on' bravado with "No stupid. You bring it on."

That is why 9/11 was a, pardon the expression, 'brilliant' victory for the wahabis. They forced Bushco to make a fundamental strategic mistake, 'never let the enemy choose the battlefield'

Why would drawing US troops into a war on the enemies' turf no longer be a goal of the terrorists?

- Make7

[Monk06]

16. Sorry for not getting back sooner.

gbrooks wrote:
Summation

If US soldiers stay the Jihadis can feast on the blood of US soldiers and their own domestic enemies at minimal cost in money and manpower.

If US troops leave we can take over the government and destroy our enemies. (Note: this last statement is true for both the Shia and Sunni militia/gangs)

Stay or leave this war is a win win for arab fundamentalists

If there were no longer US troops fighting on the terrorists' turf, what would prevent the terrorists from conducting another attack on America in an attempt to get the US troops to return to the terrorists' turf?

My answer lies in my leave/go = win win hypothesis

The Al Qa eda goal was not to take the war to US soil
by attacking the WTC and the Pentagon. They attacked
the buildings as a matter of fact but it was the dual
symbols of American commercial and military power they
after. Having hit the Pentagon and the WTC was two parts
of a Trifecta. What do you do for an encore bomb an oil
refinery or a mall? Well maybe Mt Rushmore or the Capital
Plaza.

They got the response they wanted. The ultimate recruiting
tool. The invasion of a Muslim country for revenge and plunder.

Don't forget the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi
(wahabi)and the rest were Egyptian (Muslim Brotherhood). So why
not invade Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The answer is obvious. While Iraq had nothing to do with
destroying the WTC, they were in a perfect location for
establishing a permanent military presence, they were an
enemy and a much weakened one at that. Most importantly
the American public wanted scalps to compensate for the
humiliation of 9/11 and Iraq was an easy sell.

[Make7]

17. No apology is necessary.

This is a discussion board - responses are not mandatory as far as I know. :)

The thread title started with the sentence: "Why the terrorists will not follow us home."

I'm still not clear why there wouldn't be be an incentive for terrorists to attack America. Even if the troops were withdrawn from Iraq, there is plenty of hostility and resentment for US foreign and economic policy in the rest of the Middle East. Not to mention the lingering resentment for causing such widespread harm to Iraq over the last two and a half decades.

Even if overt US involvement in Iraq ends by the withdrawl of the troops, the overall war will be far from over. The Iraq War may simply mark the beginning of downfall of the American Empire, but I doubt if the US will go down without a fight. And I would be surprised if there isn't retaliation - throughout the world and also on American soil.

- Make7

[Monk06]

19. Well in answer to that the invasion of Iraqi served to clarify the

actual battle lines and who the principal targets
are on both sides.

On the Muslim side the Iraq war demonstrates that
Iran is using the war to complete the Shia Crescent
from Lebanon, through Iran and Iraq up to the Saudi
border.

The US has its own crescent shaped sphere of influence
beginning with the ex Warsaw pact countries down to Iraq,
Iran and the rest of the Stans.

The war on terror is a proxy whose purpose is to encircle
Russia on their Western and Southern borders by bring the
former Soviet Republics into the US sphere.

For their part Russia and China are countering by setting
up oil and pipeline agreements Iran with delivery through
Pakistan and India via the SCO or the Shanghai Cooperative
Organization.

The war on terror is just a side show to energy war between
the east and west.

[donkeyotay]

9. The GOP faithful believe we can kill enough people to bring peace.

I had the misfortune of seeing Ken Blackwell on teevee, and his basic premise goes roughly that we can't lose, therefore we must keep killing people until they agree with that. Anything else is weakness. Any introspection on our own role in bringing all this on was long ago silenced by fear of being called unpatriotic, anti-American and of "blaming America first". As long as the alternatives to the single-minded exhaustion of our nation and its defenses can be framed as surrender, we will stay this course even when it kill us.

I particularly liked this observation: They answered Bush's 'bring it on' bravado with "No stupid. You bring it on."

Off we charged, half-cocked, flags waving, over the horizon and into the abyss. But we were tall in the saddle.

[mmonk]

10. The terrorists have goggle and mapquest. They can decide

to hit us whenever they want. We were already over there irregardless of Iraq (over 700 bases on foreign soil).

[Monk06]

11. Ah the 700 US military bases. That deserves a separate thread. How about it mmonk?

[mmonk]

12. Good idea.

I might start one later as I'm about to leave my desk for awhile in a few minutes.

[Monk06]

13. FYI and my enlightenment, this thread seems to have disappeared from GD within the last two minutes

[Monk06]

14. Correction it has magically reappeared ????????? n/t

[Disturbed]

18. The flaw in the the debate is that there is an assumption

that the US will withdraw from Iraq. It will not happen no matter who wins the '08 Election. There will be a draw down of US Troops in Sept. if the situation is similar to what it is now but around 60K will stay along with around 100K Mercs. These forces will not be in the middle of the Civil War but will be focused upon defending the Green Zone, training Iraqi Troops and fighting al Q in Anbar Province.