• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

McCain vs. Obama: Al Qaeda in Iraq

Sefarst

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
1,237
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html

During the Democratic debate, Obama said: "I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

McCain responded by pointing out that Al Qaeda is all ready in Iraq, to which Obama responded that they only came to Iraq because of our invasion (true).

Does McCain have a legitimate criticism? Do you think Al Qaeda will leave Iraq if we were to bring all of the troops home say, tomorrow? Do you agree that we should "re-invade" Iraq if it appears Al Qaeda plans to stay if we bring troops home, as both Clinton and Obama want?
 
I think McCain has a point. If Obama says he'll attack Al Qaeda if it's organizing in Iraq, it's fair to point out that Al Qaeda is in Iraq now. Obama's reponse that they're only there because of Bush does not address his original claim that he'd attack them if they're there.

I like McCain more than Obama, although I don't think Obama as president would be the end of the world. However, the idea that we'd leave Iraq but possibly return later to fight Al Qaeda is silly. First, as noted, because Al Qaeda is there now. Second, once out, there is going to be zero political will to go back. This second point seems so obvious that Obama loses credibility with me for even suggesting it.
 
If what we've heard and seen on the news is true, al qaeda is already in Iraq. But have they formed a base? I need to know the definition of "base" before I consider what to think about either candidate's statement. My understanding of al qaeda in Iraq is that they're scattered around in cells. While they may be keeping in contact, and actually coordinating between cells, I'm not sure they have their act together enough or have enough of a major presence to call it a "base." And if Iraq is not al qaeda's base, where is it?
 
Bododio said:
If what we've heard and seen on the news is true, al qaeda is already in Iraq. But have they formed a base? I need to know the definition of "base" before I consider what to think about either candidate's statement. My understanding of al qaeda in Iraq is that they're scattered around in cells. While they may be keeping in contact, and actually coordinating between cells, I'm not sure they have their act together enough or have enough of a major presence to call it a "base." And if Iraq is not al qaeda's base, where is it?
Click to expand...
Use the term network rather than base, and you will be on the right track.

DR
 
The military...though the Administration underplays it...has always said that AlQeda in Iraq is not the core of the problem. While AlQeda is an issue, the military reports and other reports that I've read is that one issue for AlQeda in Iraq is that it is full of foriegn arabs...so it has little deep support among the populace...other than to drive America out. The insurgency -- with a goal of driving America out -- has to my understanding always been broader than AlQeda...which has become an umbrella label the Administration has used in many instances to justify its actions.

A copule of points. First, Obama is correct. AlQeda -- whatever its form or strength -- didn't exist in Iraq prior to our invasion. So, essentially, his argument is that rather than finish the job in Afghanastan, we took it to Iraq and created new problems. Pretty undeniable. And, our military and intelligence says AlQeda in Afghanastan and Pakistan is now stronger than it has been in years...while we're stuck in Iraq.

Second, it is at least arguable that ALQeda is no real threat in Iraq. Why you ask? Because Iraq -- as a unified state, at least, will be a country dominated by Shaii Iraqis. they are the majority. They don't like us, they lean towoard Iran, but they hate -- and are hated by -- AlQeda. AlQeda and Bin Laudin see them as Heritics. So, while for the moment they may share some similar goals...drive the U.S. from Iraq, as soon as we are gone, IMO, the Shiia will focus on finishing their civil war... and that means going after sunnis -- especially non-iraqi sunnis -- fighting in the country. For Alqeda to succeed in Iraq...whether we're there or not -- you have to assume that the newly empowered majority Shiia, in otherwords, will allow themselves to once again be out-armed, out mussled, out manouvered by minority sunnis, and that the minority sunnis (many of whom are nationalists and former baathists) will allow themselves to be controlled by a foriegn dominated ideology.

In otherwords it seems unlikely. Realistically, the proble we have in Iraq is our withdrawl will invite greater Irani interference...but so will our staying. That is the unspoken consequence of the Bush/McCain policy. If we stay, we will continue to be at logger-heads with Iran. If we go, Iran will fill the void. Again, a situation Bush created that wasn't there prior to our invasion...but now that we've unleased the shiia power in Iraq, it is the consequence of the Bush policy.

Indeed, it seems to me that an argument could be made for "let's leave and let god sort them out...." It seems to me that the Shiia with the help of Iran would control and for the most part supress AlQeda in Iraq...though it will be bloody. The problem this Aministration created is that it is Iran and the Shiia that will do it...and of course, for this policy, it doesn't solve any problem, it only creates new ones.

The question I have is why anyone gives any creedence to the planning or concerns of this administration when they've been so wrong about just about everything involving Iraq? McCain's big problem isn't statement by Obama about going back in to take action against any resurgent AlQeda, it is that he wants to fight this war all over again...he wants a re-do to get right what the Bush Administration got wrong five years ago, and the situation doesn't work like that, IMO.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Use the term network rather than base, and you will be on the right track.

DR
Click to expand...

So if we replace the word "base" in Obama's debate statement with the word "network," McCain has a point? But if we leave in the word "base," McCain is, well, off base? To me the word connotes home office or center of operations. Has al qaeda actually done that in Iraq?
 
One of the big reasons that Al Qaeda remains in Iraq is because they want to stay withing bombs-reach of the US. The Iraqis are mostly hostile to Al Qaeda which is why they weren't there before the US invasion. But the invasion gave many of the Iraqis a common cause with AQ. Now, they're starting to realize who they've gotten into bed with and are rejecting them. But without the US there, AQ is not going to be able to recruit well in Iraq and they don't have the places they can hide out like they do in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It would be a poor place to organize a large following. Too easy to root out.

But in any case, Obama can always point out that a "surge" in Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a whole lot more effective than the effort in Iraq, and would have a lot more support at home and abroad. McCain is living up to his image as a warmonger by wanting to continue to fight this ridiculous battle. I think it will hurt him in the general election.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Use the term network rather than base, and you will be on the right track.

DR
Click to expand...

Im glad you said that first because it was exactly what i was thinking of typing, and you saved me the energy it would have taken for my small brain to process such thought.

Anyway to further it along i dont think Al Qaeda networking is something we are ever really going to be able to completely halt. So it seems we will be chasing them down from now until all eternity. Unless ofcourse we once again would like to use them for some purpose of our own where we will arm and train them.

Also the fact they are in Iraq doesnt mean much to me either. We chase them out of Iraq they will head somewhere else.

I think a new gameplan is needed and our current method is going to get us nowhere!
 
Sefarst said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/27/mccain.obama.iraq/index.html

During the Democratic debate, Obama said: "I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."

McCain responded by pointing out that Al Qaeda is all ready in Iraq, to which Obama responded that they only came to Iraq because of our invasion (true).

Does McCain have a legitimate criticism? Do you think Al Qaeda will leave Iraq if we were to bring all of the troops home say, tomorrow? Do you agree that we should "re-invade" Iraq if it appears Al Qaeda plans to stay if we bring troops home, as both Clinton and Obama want?
Click to expand...


"Al Boo! Qaeda" :rolleyes: ... is there anyone who's still scared?

By the way, what about El Talibano? I didn't hear anything about their rising by any candidate so far. As for Al Qaida: Strangely enough - they use to prosper in places wherever the US is politically involved. Mhmm, coincidence? And are they really Al Qaida people - or is the US-Propaganda calling every insurgent group "Al Qaida" by default for the sake of a better (US-)public acknowledgement?

Or in other words: Do insurgents in Iraq wear special Al Qaida membership cards - or how do we know for fact that the Republican Party isn't lying about imaginary threats again?

So what happened to the Taliban discussion? As far I remember, they have close ties to Al Qaida - plus they have a whole lot more members...
 
Oliver said:
"Al Boo! Qaeda" :rolleyes: ... is there anyone who's still scared?

By the way, what about El Talibano? I didn't hear anything about their rising by any candidate so far. As for Al Qaida: Strangely enough - they use to prosper in places wherever the US is politically involved. Mhmm, coincidence? And are they really Al Qaida people - or is the US-Propaganda calling every insurgent group "Al Qaida" by default for the sake of a better (US-)public acknowledgement?

Or in other words: Do insurgents in Iraq wear special Al Qaida membership cards - or how do we know for fact that the Republican Party isn't lying about imaginary threats again?

So what happened to the Taliban discussion? As far I remember, they have close ties to Al Qaida - plus they have a whole lot more members...
Click to expand...

It could be that more people are aware of what Al Gaida is than Taliban.

For that matter, some Al Qaida HAVE been captured in Iraq
 
this argument is silly...

McCain knows full well that Obama KNOWS that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It was a poorly worded answer by Obama, and like a true politician, McCain twisted it, used it...They both know that AL-Qaeda is in Pakistan, they are in Europe, they are likely in the USA right now. However, where do the have a base, a headquarters, well that is a good question? Perhaps McCain will have troops sent into Europe and Pakistan in order to flush out Al-Qaeda there.

I look forward to watching the two debate over Iraq.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
I think people are putting too much emphasis on what constitutes a base. It seems to me that Al Qaeda are obviously coordinating attacks in Iraq, so they therefore need some kind of epicenter for their operations (or a series of decentralized, smaller epicenters which seems more likely). I would consider this to fall under the category of "base," meaning a permanent or semi-permanent area for coordinating operations. I expect Al Qaeda plans to stick around any country that they can get a foothold in and, if US troops were to leave, I would assume that would make it easier for them to get that foothold.

Obama's counter-argument to McCain, that Al Qaeda wouldn't have come to Iraq in the first place if we had not invaded is true, but also a red herring. He got tripped up in his words and McCain exploited the opportunity to point out the contradiction.

I think McCain has made a valid point, contrasting Obama's tough talk (as we remember his speech about making strikes into Pakistan if he received intelligence that bin Ladin might be there) with the realities on the ground. Either Obama meant what he said in the debate, that he would go back into Iraq if Al Qaeda had bases there, or he didn't mean it. If he meant it, McCain has pointed out the inconsistency of that position with the position Obama says he holds in regards to troop withdrawal. Al Qaeda is all ready there and, in my opinion, they don't have any intention of packing up and leaving.
 
T.A.M. said:
this argument is silly...

McCain knows full well that Obama KNOWS that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It was a poorly worded answer by Obama, and like a true politician, McCain twisted it, used it...They both know that AL-Qaeda is in Pakistan, they are in Europe, they are likely in the USA right now. However, where do the have a base, a headquarters, well that is a good question? Perhaps McCain will have troops sent into Europe and Pakistan in order to flush out Al-Qaeda there.

I look forward to watching the two debate over Iraq.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's campaigning as usual. And yes, I'm looking forward to those debates. In my mind, Obama holds the trump card. Even across party lines, the war is still tremendously unpopular, though some grit their teeth and say that we have to stay. (I'm sort of this way, but I want the US to have a very small role). Unless McCain can make a case that he thought invading Iraq was a bad idea, and he certainly doesn't sound like he's saying that, then Obama will win those points, IMO.
 
Al-Qaeda formed/went to Iraq BECAUSE America was there. If America LEAVES, I suspect Al-Qaeda will, as they will really have no other reason to be there, with the exception perhaps, of recruiting. For that purpose, however, there will be much better places...namely afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt.

TAM:)
 
As I understand it, the group styling itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" was originally a group of wannabees who had no affiliation to or support from Bin Laden. It was just another insurgent outfit.
Over a couple of years, and with a number of sufficiently outlandish attacks, they evidently gained enough "creds" to get Bin Laden's official blessing, at least.

This outfit was strictly a result of the war/invasion, and a response to it.

Whether or not the actual leaders of Al Qaeda would wish to set up a permanent presence in Iraq should it become a failed state is open to question. They seem to be doing quite well in Pakistan....

There are analysts that have said that the Iraq war was a great gift to Bin Laden, providing not only a constant recruiting tool (rise and expel the Infidel Occupiers!) but a first-class training ground as well.
Considering that the Iraqis seem to currently have little love for Al Qaeda, the main thing keeping them in Iraq seems to be....Us.
 
Bikewer said:
Considering that the Iraqis seem to currently have little love for Al Qaeda, the main thing keeping them in Iraq seems to be....Us.
Click to expand...
They didn't leave Afghanistan after the Soviets left, why do you think they'd leave Iraq if we left?
 
Yes, it was, initially. Our best intelligence on the origins of Al Qaeda come from the testimony of Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl, a high ranking member of Al Qaeda until 1996 when he turned himself into American authorities and then testified against Bin Laden in a trial obtaining an indictment against Bin Laden for his role in organizing the first WTC bombing.

Fadl's testimony was given in Feb 2001, before 9/11 and is this unclouded by any post-9/11 hysteria.

Fadl testified that al-Queda formed in 1989 in a Muhajadeen training camp in Afghanistan (Day 1 transcript, p. 190 et seq.). Fadl testified that the group had two purposes. One part of the group would work to get rid of the withdrawing Soviet army and help establish a Muslim (well, what Al Qaeda considered Muslim) government, which ended up being the Taliban. The other, larger part would work to spread their Wahabbist message to the rest of Dar al Islam, initially beginning in the Sudan and Egypt.

So, yes, Al Qaeda was formed to attack the Soviets, and was formed by factions within the muhajadeen who had been fighting the Soviets for ten years prior. As the Soviets were withdrawing at the time, however, that was not their primary focus. But it was one of the things Al Qaeda did.
 
Bododio said:
So if we replace the word "base" in Obama's debate statement with the word "network," McCain has a point? But if we leave in the word "base," McCain is, well, off base? To me the word connotes home office or center of operations. Has al qaeda actually done that in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Thanks for playing.

Al Qaeda functions as an extranational network. If you choose to trap yourself into old fashioned thinking, as expressed via your (Obama's) vocabulary, you emhpasize miscomprehension of what Al Qaeda is, and how it operates.

There was some evidence of a few Al Q sorts in Iraq before we went in, however their ability to function was significantly hampered by Saddam's security aparatus. As noted above, the ability to recruit and draw in sympathetic foot soldiers from other countries was a key opportunity provided to Al Q by the American breaking of Saddam's government, aided and abetted by leaving a power vacuum (fire the Iraqi Army) in place long enough for others to rush in and fill what they could.

DR
 
T.A.M. said:
Al-Qaeda formed/went to Iraq BECAUSE America was there. If America LEAVES, I suspect Al-Qaeda will, as they will really have no other reason to be there, with the exception perhaps, of recruiting. For that purpose, however, there will be much better places...namely afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I don't think that coincides with Osama's vision of what Al Qaeda is meant to do, but the emphasis on Crusaders and Zionists as the primary opposition lends some weight to your forecast.

Let's take a peak at what Al Q is about.

al-Qa'ida (The Base) (also "the Front")

Qa‘idat al-Jihad

Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places

World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

Islamic Salvation Foundation

Usama bin Laden Network

What is the ultimate goal?

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm

If those goals are still part of Al Qaeda's mission and vision, us leaving Iraq hardly induces them to leave: it just takes one more counterforce to their objectives out of the way.

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom