El_Gringo_Grande

We do know with almost metaphysical certitude that the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq went way up after we invaded.

*edit And that our invasion did cause this increase.


Not that that means anything.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

leejo

Yes. However, that's because these people are trying to fight a war the only way they can.

They targeted the US armed forces directly and got the snot kicked out of them.
They targeted the Iraqi security forces but that didn't work.
Now they target the main population, hoping that maybe that will work.

I see a pattern of increasingly soft targets which indicates to me that the Iraqi and coalition forces are beating down the insurgents' capabilities and reducing their tactical goals.

I think everyone can agree that the ultimate victory or defeat in Iraq will be political: either the vast majority of the population there will generally support "our" goals and efforts or they will generally support the insurgents'. This is why I think that the events of 4/22/06 are so critical because on that day Iraq finally formed an elected constitutional government. Today's events are also critically important because Zarqawi had become a bit of a boogeyman in Iraq, I understand, and his death demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government and the coalition forces are capable of tracking down and killing such a boogeyman.

It's a tremendous political blow to the insurgency, who rely on their ability to convince the public that their government is unable to protect them.

On the other hand it's a tremendous boost to the elected government. I doubt it's an fluke that they were finally able today to name their new Ministers of Defense, Interior Security, and National Security. Maliki is getting it done.

TheFatKidDeath

"I said causal, not casual, and you are still making stuff up.

You are right, I incorrectly read the word. No causal realtionship between the increase of terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq? Don't let me make stuff up, let's look at some reports:


Released in April, the State Department's annual report on global terrorism incorrectly declared that terrorist attacks declined in 2003. But figures from a corrected report "will be up sharply," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has said.

The inaccurate report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 -- a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.

The report found that 169 of those were "significant" attacks, which involved death, serious injury or major property damage. However, researchers Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University and David Laitin of Stanford University reported in May that the number of significant attacks represented a 36 percent increase over the 124 events in 2001.

CNN June 13, 2004

Los Angeles Times Josh Meyer reports: Five months after embarrassed US State Department officials admitted to widespread mistakes in the government's influential annual report on global terrorism, internal investigators have found new and unrelated errors -- as well as broader underlying problems that they say essentially have destroyed the credibility of the statistics on which it is based.

In a 28-page report, the State Department's Office of Inspector General blamed the problems on sloppy data collection, inexperienced employees, personnel shortages and lax oversight. Investigators also concluded that the procedures used by the State Department, CIA and other agencies to define terrorism and terrorist attacks are so inconsistent that they can't be relied upon.

LA Times November 21 2004


WASHINGTON — The State Department (search) acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year.

Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time. The facts that we had were wrong," department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

FOX News June 10 2004


Hmmm. Those were from '04 - let's see how 05's numbers will add up:


The State Department announced yesterday that it will no longer publish annual statistics for international terrorism, a year after it was forced to withdraw its study and correct its assertion that terrorist acts had declined in 2003 when in fact they were at their highest level in years.

Critics said the decision would leave the public without an official assessment of progress in fighting terrorism, as the State Department tries to avoid a repeat of what then-Secretary Colin L. Powell called "a big mistake" in how the statistics on terrorist acts were compiled last year.

Washington Post April 19 2005

That's odd, you would think that if the numbers ACTUALLY decreased they would want the information published.

Let's see what those Leftists over at the National Review had to say:

Andrew McCarthy
April 28, 2005, 7:57 a.m.
Release ’Em
The State department plays games with terrorism stats.



Terrorist attacks globally are up sharply. Perhaps by well over 300 percent. That’s bad. But it’s a fact. Given that international terrorism is the defining national-security issue of this era, shouldn’t we know the facts? In detail?

The State Department says no. Foggy Bottom is unable to avoid making an annual report on terrorism to Congress. It’s the law. But in a mind-boggling two-step, a top State official who briefed key committees at the Capitol on Monday contended that the underlying statistics for the report — which, State grudgingly admits, relates a “dramatic uptick” in terrorist incidents worldwide — are somehow not “relevant” to the report itself. Not surprisingly, Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, has fired off a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, calling that contention “ludicrous.” When he’s right, he’s right.

This is self-inflicted damage with a history. In 2003, State issued a rosy report on global trends, braying that decreases in terror incidents provided, as then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage put it, “clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight” against international terrorism. This claim turned out to be undermined by the data, which actually showed that terror incidents had spiked…to record highs.


"Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that there would not have been a much greater number of terror attacks had we NOT invaded Iraq, and offer no evidence to show that wouldn't have happened."

I cannot disprove a negative.


I will give you the last word my friend. It stimulates the mind to debate.

-TFKD

Kerostasis

Do you know how often I've seen this line of logic used to claim, "because this cannot be proven, therefore you should just assume I'm right"? It drives me crazy!

Ok, we're glad you agree it can't be proven. So lets get back to what we know. We have the "correlation does not prove causation" axiom, but while it doesn't PROVE causation, it often SUGGESTS causation. And we have a very limited set of statistics, said to be highly unreliable. Where can we go from that?

__________________

leejo

Right. There are many conflicts going on in the world that have absolutely nothing to do with the United States or Iraq. Yet the facile assertion that we are responsible for each and every attack persists. Pakistanis and Indians are squabbling over Kashmir. Russian separatists bomb targets with little regard for how President Bush will react. You simply cannot throw out a list of international terror attacks and ask any careful thinker to accept on its face that a change is directly related to the coalition invasion of Iraq.

As the above graph shows, when you correct for Kashmir and Iraq, worldwide terror attacks are down. Not up. So how do any of these articles support your assertion that the Iraq invasion has aggravated world wide Muslim antipathy and terror action?

And even if you were somehow able to show this relationship, so what? Is US foreign policy to be constrained lest some ragtag extreme groups in east timor or the philippines or elsewhere decide to pitch a hissy fit? Are you suggesting that these few jerks should dictate how nations behave, or have the power to excuse a criminal like Saddam Hussein?

leejo

Interesting read on operation Adios Headchopper here: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006...sab_alzarq.php

I love Bill Roggio. I especially like his hot buns I mean his ability to show how a seemingly random or haphazard event is actually part of a larger operation and the result of a set of systematic actions.

TheFatKidDeath

Worldwide terrorist targets are down when corrected for Kashmir and Iraq. I suppose one can accept that statement if we move the bar of measuring what, where and whom terrorists target. Terrorism has not decreased it has simply moved to other regions.

The freqeuncy of attacks have simply increased against worldwide Western targets and interests since the invasion of Iraq. I don't see that as even debatable. Madrid, Bali, London, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Egypt, to name a few, were all targeted because of Muslim rage and anger over the invasion and occupation of Iraq coupled with the Muslim perception that the US supports Arab despots and plays a double standard with Israel. Muslim public opinion of the US is at historic lows. Osama Bin Laden in many Muslim countries is more popular than George Bush.

The coorelation between terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq is such that the Bush Administration simply stopped producing a report on world wide terrorism. Why? Perhaps it wasn't in the budget. Or perhaps it showed that the so called war on terror has done nothing but increased the threat of terrorism.

Lucky Shot

It is highly debatable. There were plenty of terrorist attacks prior to the Iraqi war. 911 was an example as was the first bombing attempt at the WTC. USS Cole bombing, killing of US soldiers in Somalia, Shoe Bomber on flight from paris to Miami, Plot to bomb the Millenium Celebration in Seattle, Kenya Embassy bombing, Tanzania Embassy bombing, Truck bomb at Khobar Towers... All suspected Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. All Prior to the Iraq War. Guess they were pretty angry to begin with.

I always liked the quote from West Wing... They will like us when we win. I do feel that the War on Terror has foiled plenty of bad guy plots as well as made me feel safer despite some hassles at the airport.

Lucky Shot

Zephyr

Statistical facts...my gut tells me they sound like something that only TERRORISTS need to know!
So how about a vacation to Cuba but not quite Cuba, just a bit different?
-Zephyr

__________________
You were once like the newbie who needed a hand from above and TacticalGamer gave you it.

You owe the newbie who comes after you that same outstretched hand from above on your honor as a Tactical Gamer.

Tactics at TG come from trust and friendship, not meticulous detail and rigid discipline.

Everyone should be assumed mature until proven otherwise.

We are no clan.
We are not a single game.
We are mature, intelligent, and cooperative individuals.
We are TacticalGamer, a community above and beyond its name.

Steeler

"My facts may be in error but I stand by my lazy generalizations."

Apply to whomever or whatever argument you wish.

__________________

TheFatKidDeath

Yes, there were terrorist attacks before the Iraq invasion, that's not was contented. The point is that the invasion of Iraq increased the attacks on Western targets.

JMJ

Back on topic.

JMJ

Separated at birth?

Lucky Shot

I disagree that it has increased the number of attacks on Western Targets, especially if you pull out any attacks within Iraq. You mentioned some terrorist bombings in Madrid, etc... but Spain has always lived in fear of Basque Terrorist attacks, London from the IRA, France has been relatively attack free from... errr.... youths....

I don't see that the invasion of Iraq has increased the attacks on Western Targets as there have been substantial attacks prior and since the attack.

Lucky Shot

AMosely

I'm failing to see the purpose of debate here. Bombing and killing Zarqawi was clearly a strategic win for US/Coalition forces and Iraqi citizens who desire peace. It won't end the war, and the sum total of gains to losses in terms of its effect on insurgent violence cannot be calculated one way or the other. Israel has been sniping at terrorist leaders and suspected leaders for decades - they just assasinated another one yesterday - yet the cycle will always continue within each region of conflict or contention. The same holds true in Iraq. This is regional sectarian violence in the middle east. Neither theater (the west bank or Iraq) will see true peace any time soon as long as long as one side continues to kill members of the other side.

It is really impossible to determine the true effect that the Zarqawi assasination or the Iraq war itself will have on international terrorism because international terrorism is an inconsistent and somewhat incongruous entity. Look at the recent Canadian arrests - look at the London bombings - would these have been carried out if Iraq was not invaded? If Bin Ladin had been killed? Even the suspects themselves may not even be able to answer such questions.