I do think Al Qaeda and its allies resources are limited. Those limits change in response to our actions but not all the impacts of our actions increase those numbers.
Factors that would tend to increase those numbers
1 - Anger at collateral damage, and anger at prison abuses.
2 - Some terrorist acts against us in Iraq might serve as inspiration for more people to become terrorists.
Factors that would tend to decrease those numbers
1 - We kill and capture terrorist in Iraq as do our allies there, reducing the threat from those specific terrorists and from those that rely on them for support or direction.
2 - #1 also has the indirect effect of deterring possible terrorists.
The real net balance relies on the long term resolution of the situation in Iraq. If a reasonable stable democratic government, with a better than average amount of respect for human rights (admittedly a low hurdle considering how many other countries act) emerges than the anger might decrease, and the positive example that Iraq could present to the Middle East would also reduce the amount of people and resources going to a terrorist conflict against the US. If we bugger out while the Iraqi government is still under existential threat, and a jihadist government replaces it than the suffering will be seen to have no purpose so the anger at the US might increase, the US will be shown to be weak or faithless, and the terrorists will have a new home. In that case US action in Iraq will have turned out to have been a big bonus for the terrorists in the medium and long runs. I don't consider that last scenario likely but it is possible. More likely is a negative scenario that isn't quite so bad. I'm somewhat optimistic, but I can understand how reasonable people can disagree with my assessment.
Oh, agreed, we may draw some terrorists into Iraq who otherwise would in any case have worked against us elsewhere - but that's hardly a win, unless you believe they would have been more effective outside Iraq
The American targets in Iraq are for the most part "harder" than targets in the US or American targets in third countries. I'm not saying that drawing the terrorists in to Iraq is necessarily a win. It might be a loss, I am only arguing that it isn't ridiculous to think it is a win.
And in an example of gross hypocrisy, our own governments agrees with me - by their actions. If they believe the world's safer, if they believe they've lessened the threat from terrorists elsewhere by drawing them into Iraq, then why do they feel the need to have greater powers, more far-reaching security, and more restrictions on civil rights at home? They obviously don't believe their own case here.
They may believe their actions in Iraq will make the world safer but only in the long term. They may believe that their actions have made the world safer but that it is still very dangerous. They may believe their actions in Iraq have made the world safer than it would have been without those actions, but still more dangerous that it had formerly been.
They obviously don't believe their own case here. Nor should you.
Not obvious at all, see my last response. As for what I believe. I think in the short, medium and long run the intervention in Afghanistan has made things safer (but exactly how much is unclear). I think in the short run the intervention in Iraq made the terrorist threat more dangerous, and perhaps in the medium run as well (its been long enough that NOW might be considered to be in the medium run). In the long run I think it will make things safer but its hardly predestined outcome, it isn't certain to do so.
Tim |
