‘The Iraq Effect’

One of the selling points of the war in Iraq, at least once the “flypaper” theory came into play, was that the war would keep the terrorists busy in one place, preventing them from wreaking havoc around the globe. On a related note, some of these same war supporters argued that the conflict would stem the tide of terrorist attacks in general, because the United States would be on the “offensive.”

Alas, both ideas are debunked by reality. Mother Jones conducted a serious statistical analysis exploring the “Iraq effect.”

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of fatal terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups, and the number of people killed in those attacks, increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, the scene of almost half the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks. But even excluding Iraq and Afghanistan — the other current jihadist hot spot — there has been a 35 percent rise in the number of attacks, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities.

Contrary to Bush’s assertion, jihadists have not let the Iraq War distract them from targeting the United States and its allies. The rate of attacks on Western interests and citizens has risen by almost 25 percent, while the yearly fatality rate has increased by 4 percent, a figure that would have been higher had planned attacks, such as the London airline plot, not been prevented.

The whole point of the war was to prevent terrorism and make the U.S. safer. It can’t be said enough: Bush’s policies have produced the opposite of their intended effect. The numbers don’t lie — the White House strategy has failed. Badly.

The effects on our national security are profound and discouraging.

The globalization of jihad and martyrdom has disquieting implications for American security in the future. Jihadists are already leaving Iraq to operate elsewhere, a “blowback” trend that will greatly increase when the war eventually winds down. Terrorist groups in Iraq, which have learned to raise millions through kidnapping and oil theft, may be in a position to help fund their jihadist brethren elsewhere. Finally, Iraq has increased the popularity of a hardcore takfiri ideology so intolerant that, unlikely as it seems, it makes Osama bin Laden appear relatively moderate.

Though few American civilians have been killed by jihadist terrorists in the past three years, it is naive to assume that this will continue to be the case. We will be living with the consequences of the Iraq debacle for many years.

Indeed, we will. It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous response to 9/11. In recent years, Bush has launched a war on terror, only to find terrorist attacks getting more frequent and claiming more lives. And by all indications, now that Bush’s policies have led to a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq, it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

If that’s not a definition of “failure,” I don’t know what is.

two more points:

1) The terrorists are not only motivated by the Iraq war, they have been trained in the methodology of terrorism. Bush’s war not only treained a new generation of terrorists, it also released to them the materials of terrorism, including hundreds of tons of high tech explosives which we left unguarded for months after the invasion.

2) Our forces are almost completely spent, and what have they been spent on?

Terrorist training.

  • “It can’t be said enough: Bush’s policies have produced the opposite of their intended effect.”

    That’s been George Walker Bush’s life experience. The guy is 100% crackers.

  • Bush’s policies are not necessarily a failure and have not necessarily produced the opposite of their intended effects.

    “Failure” and “intent” are subjective terms. If you look at the world through the demonic, vacuous eyes of the “president,” these policies have been a tremendous success in terms of enabling the heist of America’s treasure by his oligarch friends, moving America away from its constitutional framework toward a feudal, fascist state, and giving him the power of a dictator.

    All Bush needs to secure a permanent reign is another 9/11, which far from being seen as proof of his policies’ failure, will be pointed to as indisputable evidence he has been right and justified, and now must assume absolute dictatorial power to keep us “safe.”

  • Cheney pretty clearly says that the war on terror will never end:

    “The terrorists’ vision is one of murder and enslavement. . . . That leaves us only one option: to rise to America’s defense, to take the fight directly to the enemy, and to accept no outcome but victory

    We are not dealing with adversaries that will ever surrender or come to their senses

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070221/pl_usnw/remarks_by_the_vice_president_at_a_rally_for_the_troops

    So according to Cheney unless we achieve “victory” by killing or permanently incarcerating ALL of them, the war won’t be over. And the chances of this happening are what…?

  • First, I’d like to second what Haik B @ 3 said.

    Secondly, this only highlights the similarities between the War on Terror and the similarly successful [coughNOTcough] War on Drugs.

    Contrary to assertions by BushCo (TM) terrorists are not a single unified group that can be fought by any army. Even if radical islamists were the only terrorists on the planet (as BushCo likes to pretend) we’d be talking about hundreds of different groups with hundreds of different motivations scattered all around the globe. Some of them could give a damn about Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them would quite gleefully watch both countries burn to the ground. I remember when Al Zawahri (sp?) was killed and there was a lot of talk about how Osama bin Laden couldn’t stand the guy. Gee, who knew that the bad guys didn’t all get along? And of course there seems to be an endless supply of A-Q Number Twos. But BushCo wants to pretend we can shock and awe a few brown folks and they’ll all fall into line.

    And then there are the enemies the US has created via its actions. Will BushCo feel better if a group of men who spent a long unexplained time in Gitmo or Abu Gharib before being released with no explanation form a completely secular “The We’re Mad as Hell Coalition” and start blowing crap up? Probably. They’d probably call that progress.

  • It just seems logical that for any action there is an equal and oposite reaction. So if we “shock and awe” a population of innocent people, then we have to expect some reaction to our attack. I know we were attacked on 9-11, but we struck back at the wrong population. I think we should expect some response.

  • ***…to accept no outcome but victory…***

    Hitler said the same thing about Stalingrad.

    But then, there’s an even bigger problem. Current in-country forces deployed to Iraq lack the equipment needed to perform their assigned mission. They don’t even have enough vehicles to set the routine patrols they “should” be sending out—and they’re shipping twenty-one-thousand-plus more troops into Baghdad? Here’s the “big question:” When it’s finally decided to bring these guys home, how the hell are they supposed to leave—walk to the airport? They don’t have the trucks; they don’t have the troop-carriers; they don’t have the choppers. They will be written off; employed as a “glory-fodder adjective to support and justify the Reich’s mantra of “victory or death….”

  • The disillusionment about the war in Iraq has spiraled into a propaganda battle between those who wish to blame the Bush & Rumsfeld consortium and those who wish to turn face to the failures of Iraq. What war didn’t have failures in military and politcal strategy? The British over taxed their own supporters in the revolutionary war, Napolean failed to recognize his own supply lines into Russia, Hitler compromised the peace agreement with Stalin for westward expansion and Bush changed strategy and focus on the war on terror on a false premise of WMDs, via bad intelligence provided and accounted by multiple government agencies, that ultimately forced military forces to stretch forces too thin between two countries. Mistakes are made in every war.

  • Mistakes are made in every war.

    Dave knows him some spoof. Defend Bush in Iraq by comparing him to a bunch of tyrants who got their arses kicked. (Citing the example of the British during the Revolutionary War is particularly elegant.) Tack on the most infamous example of the passive voice and you’re done.

    Where’s Fallenwoman? she needs to take notes.

  • so are you asserting the opposite view? if the iraq war has lead to increased terrorist activity against US/western civilians around the world, then if we stop fighting & bring the troops home & are talk nicely to these folks, then the incidence of terrorist attacks will decrease? I don’t think so.

  • Comments are closed.