Al Qaeda numbers grow

[Davros]

I think TL that you still have first worlders pulling together in the war on terror. I think though that too many Americans now equate the war on terror almost uniquely with the war on Iraq. Iraq had only tenuous links to terror in terms of the coalitions interests in being there. We had the strangely absent WOMD, theremoval of a pain in the ass, later we had the freeing of the people, and for the truly cynical, the oil.

There have been transcripts that showed that while Bush wanted to make a terror link early, the intelligence sources would not confirm anything for him to hang his hat on. The most that we had going in where some suspicions, some leads, amd the fact that the state sponsored terrorism against Israel (hardly an unusual thing for an Arab nation but they were more open about it that others).

I think that the influx of so many suicide bombers into Iraq, attacking coalition targets (mainly US) is what has driven the stronger association link between the war on terror and the war on Iraq to the American people. You won't see your administration pick you up on this misperception either, because if people are linking the 2 struggles more closely it gives them greater domestic support for being there in the first place.

Bottom line - War on Terror = world support and co-operation. War on Iraq = mixed response and enthusiasm. Equation - War on Terror does not equal War on Iraq.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, like it or no, the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are becoming ever more linked. Right or wrong, the US created a venue for the struggle to play out. And, both sides are piling in for a battle royale. Has the Iraq War really made terrorist numbers grow so much or has it just gotten all terrorists to link up with AQ and go to fight the fight in Iraq??

As I said before it's a pre-made pressure cooker, but the theory is often "better there than here." For every rocket-totin' extremist in Iraq, there's one less extremist (or even extremist sympathizer if the guy was only mildly anti-US before the war) sitting next to you on the train.

[promethius9594]

agreed, i think that the number hasnt grown so much, as that the terrorist insurgency is straining in iraq and thus needs to pull all the agents out of the woodworks in an attempt to win something of a decisive victory.

lets be honest, if we lose iraq to terrorists the war on terror is over until another large attack occurs on america. like it or not, iraq happened and has become the board on which this game is going to be played for awhile. that board may change nations in the future, but here and now that fight is in iraq.

[Davros]

Only one problem then TL and Promethius - the rest of the world (or at least the majority of the rest of the world) does NOT equate the war on terror with the war on Iraq. The question was asked why there is no world sympathy still towards the war on terror, and I suggest to you that that groundswell still exists. There was not a whole lot of opposition to going into Afghanistan where the links between the Taliban and Al Queda were evident.

Afghanistan was part of the war on terror, whereas Iraq (despite all the WOMD and Free the people rhetoric) was not, and smells more and more of being "Pappy's unfinished business" from what the disgruntled ex-staffers lead me to believe. The fact that it is attracting terrorists in the occupation phase does not blur the issue for many thinking people who are not daily subjected to "The Fair and Balanced One".

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As I said before it's a pre-made pressure cooker, but the theory is often "better there than here." For every rocket-totin' extremist in Iraq, there's one less extremist (or even extremist sympathizer if the guy was only mildly anti-US before the war) sitting next to you on the train.

Tell that to countries like Spain, France, and Turkey were more of these guys are sitting on a train than before.