Al-Zarqawi caught, released By mistake

[Cyrus]

I just finished watching the Charlie Rose program tonight, where his guest mentioned a speech made by the Iotollah of Iran and his condemnation of Zarqawi in Iraq. Mercator, as I said before, he is real, you really need to start reading some credible news sources or provide them, because this is honestly getting to be quite foolish. Provide some hard facts from government sources. I think bad reporting has caused this name to get tossed around so much so that every time someone sneezes its blamed on him. Which has made him an easy target for being a 'myth'.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200511323578.asp

Read the link.

 

[vanesch]

I think bad reporting has caused this name to get tossed around so much so that every time someone sneezes its blamed on him.

But don't you think that is EXACTLY what is being denounced here ? That maybe there is somewhere a living, or dead, person, called Al Zarqawi, that he may have organized a few attacks, who knows, but that he's MAINLY just a "face on insurgence" ? And that each time a freelance wannabee blows himself up, "Al Zarqawi did it" ? Like before "Saddam did it" ?

Of course all people who MIGHT be thought of having a link with Al Zarqawi will tell the world they don't ! Otherwise you get problems with US forces (who can then say, once more, that they arrested "the brother of Al Zarqawi", the "cousin of Al Zarqawi", ...)

It's of course not excluded that Al Zarqawi exists (I don't mean, physically exist ; probably the guy exists as a person, or has existed at least ; I mean: the powerful Al Zarqawi that makes bombs explode every day in Iraq), but we've now heard so many times that it is "all the fault of Mr. X" and "if we can get down Mr. X then all the troubles will be solved", that it starts sounding as a mantra, no ? Especially when you realize that it is an effective propaganda technique to keep the battle going. Going after Mr. BadGuy is more motivating than going after several independent, small groups of insurgents with independent agendas (but who may simpathise with each other).

The link provided by Mercator (unfortunately in Dutch but with an English summary) was interesting: it is from a professor in political science:

Summary

Rik Coolsaet compares fact and fiction in today’s international terrorism. Underestimating terrorism is dangerous. But exaggerating the threat is just as dangerous – so is groupthink, he argues. When dealing with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden myth and reality tend to get mixed up. Contrary to widespread belief, international terrorism is far from humanity’s biggest threat today. Indeed, since 1969 there has been a gradual decrease of the number of terrorist attacks and this despite dramatic terrorist mass murders such as 9/11. He argues furthermore that al-Qaeda has become kind of a myth. Just like in the 19th century, when a similar anarchist terrorist International only existed in the public’s mind, today’s al-Qaeda is like a broken thermometer whose mercury has burst into a multitude of small blobs, all highly toxic, but unrelated to one another. Al-Qaeda no longer exists as the global disciplined and centralized terrorist organization it once was. It has turned into a grassroots phenomenon. It is a unifying flag, carried by a loosely connected body of home-grown terror groups and even freelance jihadists, each going their own way without central command, unaffiliated with any group. This transformation of today’s terrorism implies that counterterrorism efforts will have to be borne by policy instruments with a more pronounced political character, domestically as well as internationally.

I think the analysis is very interesting. In the article, it is actually shown that - apart from ONE event which was the twin towers of course - parameters on the number of terrorist attacks in the world, or on the number of victims it makes, is on the decline since the 70ies. Sources are provided for these numbers.

It also argues that Al Quaida, as such, doesn't exist anymore as a coherent organization, but that it is kept alive as a myth, and as a symbol for independent, small terrorist organizations.

 

[Evo]

In the article, it is actually shown that - apart from ONE event which was the twin towers of course - parameters on the number of terrorist attacks in the world, or on the number of victims it makes, is on the decline since the 70ies. Sources are provided for these numbers.

Vanesch, can you post those? I am curious what they are counting as terrorists attacks for their comparison.

It also argues that Al Quaida, as such, doesn't exist anymore as a coherent organization, but that it is kept alive as a myth, and as a symbol for independent, small terrorist organizations.

I believe that, and that's what I've been arguing, that there is no single unified group fighting as the "insurgents" in Iraq. They are small, scattered, self interest groups.

 

[Cyrus]

It doesn’t exist because we made them nonexistent. Otherwise they would still be running Afghanistan and plotting attacks. Al-Qaeda is not a major threat?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/TerroristAttacksAlQaeda.png

You may want to consider that map, as it does not encompass every attack.

I see your point, about putting a face on evil. But I still contend, SO WHAT? That does not make the US any safer than a single figure head. I really don't see the benefit of any conclusion to this argument. The terrorists are not so stupid as to centralize all their power into a few men, because they know that if these men get captured it could be the end of them. This is why there called terrorist 'cells.' I’m sure there are many independent terrorist cells in Iraq right now, but they are more than likely influenced by a hierarchical structure.

international terrorism is far from humanity’s biggest threat today.

Then he should go live in Iraq if it's 'no big threat.' This argument is asinine. They ARE the major threat to all western civilization. They follow no rules, and want to kill all non-believers. In addition, they want to turn the world into a theocracy. If that’s not a major threat to GLOBAL society, then I don’t know what is. Name me another major threat to society besides terrorism these days, in terms of this magnitude? A decrease in attacks, ok fine. But if you have less car bombings, but more twin tower attacks, embassy bombings, Cole bombings, train bombings, hijacking an entire country (Afghanistan), blowing up British Embassy. Just because it’s fewer occurrences, does not mean there smaller in magnitude.

 

[Burnsys]

They ARE the major threat to all western civilization.

The mayor threat to western "Civilization" are poverty and pollution.

They follow no rules, and want to kill all non-believers. In addition, they want to turn the world into a theocracy.

Yes yes.. they want to kill us becouse the hate FREDOMtm
That is 100% propaganda. they want to kill you becouse the actions of your government arround the globe..

If that’s not a major threat to GLOBAL society, then I don’t know what is. Name me another major threat to society besides terrorism these days, in terms of this magnitude?

Multinational Corporations , US, british and european goverments.

 

[vanesch]

Vanesch, can you post those? I am curious what they are counting as terrorists attacks for their comparison.

Well, in the article:
http://www.irri-kiib.be/papers/IS-coolsaet-nov.04.htm

plot 1 is the NUMBER of attacks according to two different measures, RAND (if I follow the link in the document, I come out here: http://www.tkb.org/Home.jsp) it is reference [3] in the text, and http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/c12153.htm for "Patterns" (reference [2] in the text).

plot 2 is the number of VICTIMS (according to the text, using the RAND source), plus a linear fit. The linear fit is rising, but only due to the peak of the twin towers. Overall, in the data, there is a downward trend.

I believe that, and that's what I've been arguing, that there is no single unified group fighting as the "insurgents" in Iraq. They are small, scattered, self interest groups.

Yes, that's the point I think was made here. Now if they are small scattered self interest groups, then it is difficult to see how a figure like Zarqawi is going to orchestrate it all. And if he doesn't, then he is not the figure that he's supposed to be, according to several sources.

 

[vanesch]

It doesn’t exist because we made them nonexistent.

That is acknowledged in the text. Al quaida DID exist, and DID plan the twin towers. But after the invasion in afghanistan, it DIDN'T exist anymore as a monolitic structure, just as a symbol, for independent groups.

Al-Qaeda is not a major threat?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/TerroristAttacksAlQaeda.png
You may want to consider that map, as it does not encompass every attack.

Note that it says "attributed to". But in fact, they are the workings of INDEPENDENT groups which have Al Qaida as a symbol. In the text, it is put in doubt if the overal organizing structure of Al Qaida is still existing.

I see your point, about putting a face on evil. But I still contend, SO WHAT? That does not make the US any safer than a single figure head. I really don't see the benefit of any conclusion to this argument.

Having the Mr BadGuy simplifies the picture. We go after Mr. BadGuy and his 5 comrades. Knowing that you have a set of scattered, individual groups with different agendas makes the situation much more messy, and much less attractive to face.

The terrorists are not so stupid as to centralize all their power into a few men, because they know that if these men get captured it could be the end of them. This is why there called terrorist 'cells.' I’m sure there are many independent terrorist cells in Iraq right now, but they are more than likely influenced by a hierarchical structure.

That's the point that is highly doubted.

Then he should go live in Iraq if it's 'no big threat.' This argument is asinine. They ARE the major threat to all western civilization. They follow no rules, and want to kill all non-believers.

Well, for sure, it's more dangerous to go live in Iraq now, than, say, 4 years ago.
How many people did they really kill ? And how many people got killed last year in car accidents, worldwide ? And how many people were killed by other causes ? The point of the paper was that the terrorist thread, although of course existing, is a relatively minor issue in world affairs, and has been blown up to unreasonable proportions by certain politicians, something the professor considers a potentially bigger danger than the terrorism itself.

In addition, they want to turn the world into a theocracy. If that’s not a major threat to GLOBAL society, then I don’t know what is. Name me another major threat to society besides terrorism these days, in terms of this magnitude?

I think famine and unequal distribution of wealth, AIDS, several other diseases, ecological problems, global warming, overpopulation, hey, even traffic accidents are VASTLY more important problems than a few crazy bearded men with a bomb. That doesn't mean that the problem of terrorism should not be handled, but its over-emphasis is causing way more problems than that it solves. It should be put in the right perspective.

A decrease in attacks, ok fine. But if you have less car bombings, but more twin tower attacks, embassy bombings, Cole bombings, train bombings, hijacking an entire country (Afghanistan), blowing up British Embassy. Just because it’s fewer occurrences, does not mean there smaller in magnitude.

The number of victims is also on the decline (apart from the twin towers). That was figure 2 in the article.

Look, the tsunami last year killed 300.000 people. One single natural catastrophe. How does that compare to the twin towers ?

 

[Cyrus]

Yes yes.. they want to kill us becouse the hate FREDOMtm
That is 100% propaganda. they want to kill you becouse the actions of your government arround the globe..

100% propaganda? So the middle east is full of Muslim democracies right, they go around spreading toleration for other religions right, they attack Spain because its part of the US government, right?... Sheesh, I'm speechless. They attack us because there is a power struggle against them and democracy, and they know that if the people were able to voice their opinions they would be overthrown in a heartbeat. Why do you think countries like Iran have strong pro American movements within it for democracy, man? Why do you think they wanted to stop the Iraq elections? Go read up on the Middle East before making any more comments like that, you’re clearly against the United States and Great Britain if you hold those views. I find it convenient that you fail to hold the Middle East accountable for its own governance as well. You seem to forget about Syria being forced to withdraw from Jordan due to Jordanian pressures, due in part to the inspiration of the American struggle for democracy in Iraq. The US gives out more foreign aid than any other country on the face of the earth, get your facts in order before you make them out to be a bad people.

I think famine and unequal distribution of wealth, AIDS, several other diseases, ecological problems, global warming, overpopulation, hey, even traffic accidents are VASTLY more important problems than a few crazy bearded men with a bomb.

Yes, I agree, they certainly are vitally important issues; however, the question is not to natural or economic disasters. I’m speaking in terms of military/militant forces to destabilize and undermine the core values of civilization. These people are perversions of their own faith, and look what its done to their own region. Now imagine if they spread throughout the world, AIDs, poverty, and other issues would be secondary. Don't forget, there are terrorists fighting in Chechnya and southeastern Asia as well, and that isn’t publicized to a great extent. This problem is spreading. These people are even resorting to attacks within different Muslim groups, which attests to their fanaticism. Imagine if that bomb went off in France, and not Spain. I think you would have very different views on the seriousness of the situation. It’s very easy to criticize its importance, until you become on the receiving end of the fighting.

Having the Mr BadGuy simplifies the picture. We go after Mr. BadGuy and his 5 comrades. Knowing that you have a set of scattered, individual groups with different agendas makes the situation much more messy, and much less attractive to face.

That’s fine, but then what is the alternative? Publicize the war in a fashion that will make it seem less likely to win and demoralize support? That would result in the US leaving Iraq prematurely and cause more harm than one can possibly imagine. The consequence of using Zarqawi as a figure head, won’t change the fact that there is intense fighting even if it is with small insurgent groups. As for the media blaming every little event on him, that’s not exactly true. For the most part, the media has been good in stoping to spread his name around so much these days. Click this link and watch the video, Zarqawi is not blamed for the attack, insurgents are. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10451350/

 

[Burnsys]

100% propaganda? So the middle east is full of Muslim democracies right, they go around spreading toleration for other religions right, they attack Spain because its part of the US government, right?... Sheesh, I'm speechless. They attack us because there is a power struggle against them and democracy, and they know that if the people were able to voice their opinions they would be overthrown in a heartbeat.

Yes like democraticaly elected Prime Minister of iran Mohammad Mossadeq that was overtrown by the cia and the mi6, The cia payed high rank military personal, bribed priests and payed people to make violent riots against the elected goverment. That is what i call democracy made in US.

Why do you think countries like Iran have strong pro American movements within it for democracy, man?

Have you ever heard about "Cia covert operations"?? well start reading:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

Why do you think they wanted to stop the Iraq elections? Go read up on the Middle East before making any more comments like that, you’re clearly against the United States and Great Britain if you hold those views. I find it convenient that you fail to hold the Middle East accountable for its own governance as well. You seem to forget about Syria being forced to withdraw from Jordan due to Jordanian pressures, due in part to the inspiration of the American struggle for democracy in Iraq.

Ohh you mean things like supporting and helping saddam houseing in the 80'??

The US gives out more foreign aid than any other country on the face of the earth, get your facts in order before you make them out to be a bad people.

US foreing aid is nothing more that a monetary bribe to corrupt goverments.

just like in post coup iran:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/4-Orig.pdf
"The department of state wanted to satisfy itself that an adequate amount of interin economic aid would be forthcoming to the successor goverment."

 

[Cyrus]

First of all, there are not 'priests' in Iran, we have Ayatollahs, and I'm well aware of the coup operations that went on. Iran has been plauged by many political problems, but that's another topic entirely and I'm not going to go into that.

US foreing aid is nothing more that a monetary bribe to corrupt goverments.

You really are something. Since you put yourself out there, I want you to back your statements up, (In terms of using aid as bribes). I guess the help to the tsunami victims were bribes, the help offered to Iran after the earthquake, despite the bad relations, was a bribe, the help for AIDs and hunger in Africa, is a bribe?


PS, get off your high horse, who are you to point fingers, when YOUR own country killed almost 30,000 of its own citizens in your dirty war from 1973-1980? So stop tearing old wounds. Every country has done things it shouldn't have in the past, yours included. It's sad that politics is dirty and that countries do these kinds of things, but if you think its only the united states, then your SADLY misinformed. What about the attempted coup that resulted in the poisioning of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, of Ukraine? Yes, I am not downplaying the mistakes of the US in the past, but this is an open election for the first time in a region where elections are always tilted an biased, if elecetions are even allowed . So your argument falls through the cracks in this reguard. Trying to set up an open deomocracy run by the people and for the people of Iraq is hardly a small feat, none the less one that is a 'conspiracy' of bribes and coups.

 

[vanesch]

Yes, I agree, they certainly are vitally important issues; however, the question is not to natural or economic disasters. I’m speaking in terms of military/militant forces to destabilize and undermine the core values of civilization.

I think that those forces have the importance we're willing to give them. They are not very important (in the sense that their intrinsic ability of nuisance is limited), but we make them important. I don't think that they have, on their own, the "force to destabilize the core values of WESTERN civilisation". But unfortunately, they are fine strategists, and found exactly the right cooperation from certain short-sighted Western politicians to advance their cause, and tricked them into large-scale military operations which:
- cost a fortune
- damage irreversibly the image of the west in the eyes of many people
- destabilise local regimes that were hostile to Islamic terrorist activities

and take our attention away from real issues which do not count in the few thousands of death, but in the millions of death. When you look at all the ressources and lives wasted on it (just because some politicians decided that this was a great way to stay in power)...

Do you realize that you have now about as many dead soldiers than you had victims of the twin towers, in a fight that even hasn't gotten anything to do with it, except that it was waged in its name ?

These people are perversions of their own faith, and look what its done to their own region. Now imagine if they spread throughout the world, AIDs, poverty, and other issues would be secondary.

I think that in that case, we shouldn't help their cause. So we should stop making them find occasions to show them as defenders of their nations, people and values, which is exactly what the Iraq invasion has done.

After 9/11, the image in the world of Islamic terrorism was very negative, and the Afghan invasion whiped out their nest. Things could have done better there, but ok, there was a hurry, there was a consensus.
Intelligence work and police action all over the world would have put them to (almost) silence. Their public image (with their recruting basis, which are the Arabic populations) was seriously damaged, and moreover, Arab regimes would think twice before openly supporting them.
And then, a gift from Allah, some idiots decide to attack, on totally wrong grounds, an Arab country. You could not have helped more the cause of Islamic terrorism ! They finally had a "just" cause. They could now justify the attacks on the evil west.

Don't forget, there are terrorists fighting in Chechnya and southeastern Asia as well, and that isn’t publicized to a great extent.

Now Chechnya was a bit badly treated by the Russians, I'd say. No wonder that people wanting to defend their homeland against foreign agression joined with the OTHER enemies of the agressor, in casu Islamic terrorists. Exactly what happened in Iraq. Exactly what happened during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. In each of these cases, the foreign agression mixes the nationalistic defense reflex with the cause of Islamic terrorism. In each case, such actions give a lot of oxygen to the cause of Islamic terrorism.

This problem is spreading. These people are even resorting to attacks within different Muslim groups, which attests to their fanaticism. Imagine if that bomb went off in France, and not Spain.

France has had its dose of Islamic terrorism. The 1995 Paris subway attacks for instance. It also has had its experience (its own fault) of what it means to fight in an Arabic country. That's probably why they knew it was NOT a good idea to attack a secular Arabic country that had nothing to do with terrorism (compared to its neighbours). Unfortunately, they could not stop certain western politicians from cooperating (unknowingly) with the Islamic terrorists and further their cause.

Before that, Europe has known its series of communist terrorist attacks. It is very often the work of a very small group of crazy people, and careful intelligence and police work solves the issue, not cruise missiles and B-52s.

I think you would have very different views on the seriousness of the situation. It’s very easy to criticize its importance, until you become on the receiving end of the fighting.

I tell you, in Europe we've had our dose of terrorism.

That’s fine, but then what is the alternative?

Tell the truth, for a change. Show what the situation REALLY is like.

 

[Cyrus]

- destabilise local regimes that were hostile to Islamic terrorist activities

Well, let's think about that one. Before and after the attacks, Iran has been a big supporter of terrorism, sadly. Syria too has been a problem, and still is. But its been the pressures from the US AFTER entering the region that has caused Syria to scale back on its actions.

and take our attention away from real issues which do not count in the few thousands of death,

This war is more than just a few thousand deaths, it’s about life. It’s about changing a region of millions of Arabs, Africans and Asians. If Iraq can be set up as a successful democracy, it will be a beacon to the Arab world that democracy can work in Islamic society. This will have far greater ramifications than 3,000 dead soldiers. This is why they have risked their lives, for something greater than themselves. And its very detrimental to not support such a fundamental and noble ideal as promoting democracy, which along with it comes human rights, and the rights of women for the first time. Not just pseudo-rights like in many other Arab countries, but real definitive rights.

I think that in that case, we shouldn't help their cause. So we should stop making them find occasions to show them as defenders of their nations, people and values, which is exactly what the Iraq invasion has done.

YES! And this goes along with what I mentioned in another post. These attacks, they need to be outcries not only by the US, Muslims in the region need to have mass protest against these people as well. Keep in mind many more attacks are occurring against other Muslims than US troops.

Intelligence work and police action all over the world would have put them to (almost) silence.

No, I disagree, totally. They would, perhaps, identify terrorists. BUT, they cannot just start going into countries and kidnap terrorists and killing them without declaring war. For (some) countries, terrorists can be captured using this information sharing, vis-à-vis Pakistan and the US. But in many other countries, this simply isn’t going to work. So, sadly, the only option is to draw them to Iraq so that you can kill them without crossing into other countries boarders unwelcomingly.

Now Chechnya was a bit badly treated by the Russians, I'd say.

Yes, totally. BUT, the terrorists that took over the theater killing many civilians, and the terrorist that went into that school killing many women and children, was handled equally bad by the fundamentalists.

I tell you, in Europe we've had our dose of terrorism.

Unfortunate, but true.

Tell the truth, for a change. Show what the situation REALLY is like.

Don't be mistaken. The US media does show the horrible violence the US forces face in Iraq on the news every night . It’s not shown in a nice light, so in that regard your incorrect. Abu-Ghraib, not so nice, but shown. Daily Roadside bombings, shown. Assignations, shown. Beheadings, shown. I don’t really see where you can say there not showing the situation in a bad light.

I will give you this quote, which I always enjoyed:

Someone said, "What do you think of repaying evil with kindness? Confucius replied, "Then what are you going to repay kindness with? Repay kindness with kindness, but repay evil with justice."

Very true in this situation.

 

[Burnsys]

First of all, there are not 'priests' in Iran, we have Ayatollahs, and I'm well aware of the coup operations that went on. Iran has been plauged by many political problems, but that's another topic entirely and I'm not going to go into that.

That is not another topic.. it has everything to do with "Spreading Democracy and Freedom", it's a clear example of your doble morale, saying something but doing the oposite.

You really are something. Since you put yourself out there, I want you to back your statements up, (In terms of using aid as bribes).
I guess the help to the tsunami victims were bribes, the help offered to Iran after the earthquake, despite the bad relations, was a bribe, the help for AIDs and hunger in Africa, is a bribe?

USAID and the CIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAID

USAID, the CIA, and the Coup in Haiti
http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/442_0_15_0_C35/

CIA Ops in Tibet, Sudan and Cuba
http://www.freedomdomain.com/cia/mcgehee02.html

PS, get off your high horse, who are you to point fingers, when YOUR own country killed almost 30,000 of its own citizens in your dirty war from 1973-1980? So stop tearing old wounds. Every country has done things it shouldn't have in the past, yours included. It's sad that politics is dirty and that countries do these kinds of things, but if you think its only the united states, then your SADLY misinformed.

thats another topic entirely and I'm not going to go into that.!

No, realy. The people who killed 30.000 people in my country was military personel trained by YOUR government in the http://www.soaw.org/"

The full operation in latin america was called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor"

Operation Condor (Spanish:Operación Cóndor) was a campaign of assassination and intelligence-gathering, dubbed counter-terrorism, conducted jointly by the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay in the mid-1970s, as its main participants
The United States provided assistance with "a communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone"
The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability, in Foreign Affairs November/December 2003, pinpointed Henry Kissinger's influence in Operation Condor. Nearly ten nations of the American continent participated in the brutal campaign.
has been alleged that Operation Condor was given at least tacit approval by the United States
It appears that Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State in the Nixon administration, was closely involved diplomatically with the Southern Cone governments at the time and well-aware of the Condor plan. On March 6, 2001, the New York Times reported the existence of a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the United States facilitated communications for Operation Condor. This 1978 cable released in 2000 under Chile declassification project showed that the South American intelligence chiefs involved in Condor "keep in touch with one another through a U.S. communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone which covers all of Latin America".

What about the attempted coup that resulted in the poisioning of the presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, of Ukraine?

There was cia involvment in the elections of Ukranie.
And Yulia TIMOSHENKO (the right hand of Yuschenko) was acused for fraud and wanted by the interpol. the days before the elections she magicaly disapeared from interpol wanted people page:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=55793

Trying to set up an open deomocracy run by the people and for the people of Iraq is hardly a small feat, none the less one that is a 'conspiracy' of bribes and coups.

Sorry but the us has helped a lot more of dictatorships against democracys in the world.. Actively helping dictatorships a lot of times ever overtrowing democraticaly elected presidents... So don't bring here the "We want to spread democracy" becouse that is not true, democracy is only a "Tool" US government use for other most important priorities, for example: Natural resources and Markets for their corporations.

 

[vanesch]

This war is more than just a few thousand deaths, it’s about life. It’s about changing a region of millions of Arabs, Africans and Asians. If Iraq can be set up as a successful democracy, it will be a beacon to the Arab world that democracy can work in Islamic society.

This is the "domino effect" doctrine of Wolfowitz and Co, but it is pretty naive. Iraq won't be set up as a successful democracy (or, at least, the probability that it will work out that way is very low). According to the initial "plan", it should have been there already for about 2 years (6 weeks or 6 months, but not 6 years), and time is running out ; it costs the US taxpayer a fortune, and the hoped-for return on investment (oil) doesn't really pay off as anticipated, public support is dwindling. So politically, in at most 2 years time from now, you'll be obliged to pull out. There's no indication that things will have evolved positively by then... even though I think that a majority of the Iraqi population would want to see some kind of democracy (well, first they'd like to get back to their living standard they had under Saddam of course). But everything is set up for a civil war and a lot of uncontrolled subversion. Besides the US forces, there is no potential for maintenance of public order - apart from local war lords (insurgents-terrorists...). Pull them out, and you can have elections as much as you want, it won't stop the violence. Given that you are also sitting upon a time bomb with ethnic and religious oppositions, I think that anyone who is claiming that Iraq is "on its way to democracy" has very rosely tinted glasses to look into the future.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the "domino effect" doctrine of Wolfowitz and Co, but it is pretty naive. Iraq won't be set up as a successful democracy (or, at least, the probability that it will work out that way is very low). According to the initial "plan", it should have been there already for about 2 years (6 weeks or 6 months, but not 6 years),

Six weeks or 6 months? No way - where did you hear anyone say that?

...public support is dwindling.

Public support couldn't get much lower. And once we start drawing-down our troops (next month) public (and world) support will go back up. Bush's approval rating is already rising, no doubt because of the announcements of troop drawdowns.

So politically, in at most 2 years time from now, you'll be obliged to pull out.

That's fine...

There's no indication that things will have evolved positively by then...

I consider the multiple successful elections and dropping attacks by terrorists pretty positive indications.

Given that you are also sitting upon a time bomb with ethnic and religious oppositions, I think that anyone who is claiming that Iraq is "on its way to democracy" has very rosely tinted glasses to look into the future.

Can a stable country be formed by revolutionaries and people with vastly different ideologies? Yeah, it seems contradictory - but I live in such a country.

Don't write-off Iraq so quickly. Progress has been made and while they have a long way to go, they are, at least, moving forward.