The New York Times reports on a leaked assessment by 16 US spy agencies at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin. According to The Times "Titled 'Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe."

Our ABC quotes Senator Ted Kennedy saying:

"This intelligence document should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phoney argument about the Iraq war," he said.

"The fact that we need a new direction in Iraq to really win the war on terror and make Americans safer could not be clearer or more urgent, yet this administration stubbornly clings to a failed 'stay-the-course' strategy."

All of this raises a few questions for me. What would be the state of international terrorism if there had been no Iraq War? Would it have subsided, or would it have expanded? Afterall, the Clinton policy of ignoring it doesn't seem to have been all that successful.

Are there pay-offs in the Iraq War that justify a temporary increase in terrorism? Short-term pain for long-term gain?

What alternate strategies would or should a Democrat administration adopt?

What would have been the state in Iraq if Hussein had either died or been desposed by domestic forces?

Is there a path which could significantly decrease terrorism, or the risk of it, or is it a movement that we just have to out wait?

Are these the same agencies that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

That's a bit trite T800. Are you discounting the possibility that they've learned from the WMD failure? And are you indicating that you don't support intelligence agencies at all? Whose advice are you going to rely on in these matters?

Part of the solution would be to get out of Iraq -

Another part would also be to expend part of the 1.4 trillion dollars currently spent on armaments and provide a substitute income stream for the Aghanis other than opium.

Economic sanctions were working in Iraq - the urgency to get in there was a desire to save face because the international community could not find Osama, his donkey or his dialysis machine - those who had lost citizens at the hands of terorists needed an Ayrab scalp - Saddams was the easiest to get - not overly popular amongst other arab states and an all round bad guy.

1.4 trillion dollars would surely buy a few brownie points and a bit of time for contemplation for and with with the dictators, the terrorists and aspiring colonial powers, whatever their leanings are ??!

Graham, good questions.

I think that terrorism would have still been an issue if Iraq had been left alone but that its draw power might have been much less.

If the USA had concentrated on the hunt for Osama, if they had ensured that Afganistan got as good a start at rebuilding as possible, if they had been able to manage their troops better so that the atrocities stayed with the terrorists then the issues would have been much more clear cut.

The extremists will always be with us in one form or another, the trick is to not give them easy propaganda wins.

From what I've seen of it there were a lot things the US missed in the lead up to Sept 11 that they should have picked up with existing security arrangements if they had worked together better. A tidy up of domestic security would have dramatically reduced the risks of another large scale attack.

Going to war in Iraq has exposed them to the bad PR that leading a war brings (troops behaving badly etc) and diverted some of the outrage away from the terrorists. It has also cost them a bucket load of money and a lot of additional stress (not to mention quite a few lives).

Lots of if's. Now how can they get out of Iraq without making things worse?

R0bert

You make some good points Robert. The US hasn't handled thing very well.

"trite" Graham? I'd profer... concise. Nothing wrong with a bit of brevity considering the word limit here. Not to mention the post limit.

The US failed to identify the Iraqi reaction and the fact that insurgents would target Iraqis and the Iraqis themselves would killing one another. But then that's not exactly a logical or reasonable reaction to being freed from a dictator.

The US have overestimated in both Iraq and afghanistan the reaction and willingness of the people to help themselves and band together for the good of their respective countries. this is not something they have faced and had experience with before. look at Japan after the bomb. Totally different and their most familiar past experience.

The US have failed on many levels with their aid also. Not enough room to point out how.

Robert, I'm wondering what the Democrats would do differently if they win the Whitehouse in two years' time, which is another way of asking your question - how do you get out? Although I'm not sure that getting out is the sensible thing to do.

I think it was predictable that a level of civil war was likely. If you check out the history of Iraq that's the way it has been. We had an intern, Eliza Brown who did a great job of summarising their recent history at http://issuesbriefs.nationalforum.com.au/war-in-iraq/iraq.html. Not surprising when you have a country synthesised from three major disparate ethnic or religious groups.

Colin Powell's comments to Bush "If you break it you own it," get more and more strongly prescient every day.

I wasn't trying to insult you T800, it just seemed that you were dismissing the intelligence report because these agencies had got it wrong before, which I didn't think was all that reasonable a position.

Graham, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats come up with anything workable on the Iraq front.

An early withdrawal could be a disaster while the fighting continues and I'm not convinced that it's only the US presence keeping the fighting going.

Staying there continues to fuel the resentment of being an invading army as well as providing more opportunites for major stuff ups.

I think that the longer they keep large numbers of people in Iraq and surrounding countries the greater the risk that they will suffer a major disaster on that front.

R0bert

Obviously T800 is right in his comments that the US appears to have gone in with niave notions that merely removing the tyrant would solve the problems in Iraq. Frankly, I think the biggest mistake the US government made was waging war on the basis that they could solve the problems in Iraq. Such an undertaking involves all sorts of variables over which the US has no control. When you wage war, you wage war to defend against, punish, destroy or intimidate an enemy. FULL STOP. That is all you can be sure of achieving with military force. All the rest is wishy washy bunk.

Ironically it seems only a ruthless tyrant like Saddam can achieve order in a place like that. At some point the Americans are going to have to wake up to this and then they will either have to behave like their predecessor, or pull out.

If they pull out though, expect other powers, who are prepared to restore order with ruthless force (Iran for example) to fill the void. Then we'll see where all these terrorist militants choose to expend their energies.

I suppose when you know violence (or is that licence to be vile?) begets violence, it’s a fairly safe thing to say "it’s going to be a long war".

How’s that for convenience?

But eh, somebody's gotta keep arms dealers in jobs and expensive lifestyles.

I heard it put this way today:

“Bombing for peace is like [deleted] for virginity!”

Graham said:

"All of this raises a few questions for me. What would be the state of international terrorism if there had been no Iraq War?"

Its like money and power. Do they 'change' people or just show them up later as they truly are anyway ?

My belief is that if the Iraq war had not gone ahead, nothing much would have changed in the short term in Australia or the West. I don't think Iraq has reduced the possibility of 'terrorism' at all, and I DO believe it has increased it.

BUT....

In what way ?

For one, it has shown that many Muslims world wide see any interference in 'Muslim Lands' as an attack on THEM, even though they are Australian or British citizens !

What is the psychology of this mental outlook ?

Clearly, they view Islam in terms of Civil States, which have to be defended by violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4rMJVHyeg

Interestingly, be they Shia or Sunni (who are killing each other for the similar reasons... 'true' Islam verses 'heretical') they still see intervention in a failed Muslim Land as 'Crusaders' at war with Islam/Muslims.

So, it appears to me that whereever there is a Muslim community, there will also be a fringe (but significant) element who is:
a) Seeking to violently oppose such 'crusades'
b) Attempting to Radicalize and bring into line the moderate Muslim community for the above.

The fact that prior to the Iraq invasion, no attacks in Australia had occurred, does not mean they would not eventually.

Amrozi screamed "Jews, remember Khaibar". Hezbollah have a missile named "Khaibar-1" .. I've spoken about the inhuman events at Khaibar in other posts. Suffice to say here, that '7th century Islamic history and values are ALIVE and WELL in 2006 and the attitudes of Mohammed are also in their heads.
They will eventually percieve even legislation as 'War on Islam' and we would have seen them in action.

It seems we are about to know more about the intelligence assessment as President Bush has authorised its release - which suggests that its conclusions may not be as damning of him as they appear to be. Or it might just be a defensive action on the basis that once it is out debate will die down more quickly than if it is hidden. Reuters has the story here: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-26T221346Z_01_N26341819_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BUSH.xml

And this is the link to the declassified judgement http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf. I won't have time to read it for a while, but if anyone wants to do a precis! :-)

Interesting topic,

Here is a question: would the result be the same if the US and its allies fought on the terrorism front? (ie Afghanistan and Pakistan).

The US failed to gain support of other Arab & Muslim states and failed to establish any links between Iraq and terrorism. Hence it was seen by many Irais, Arab and Muslim states as unjustified war and put simply invasion.
Its different from the first gulf war were Arab states were at the front line to liberate Kuwait from Iraq.

Terrorism & violence becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when a country invades another for no reason. If we invade Japan for no reason today we will bring back the Kamikazis.

This new report would need to show why the all other reports and assessments were wrong. I still do not believe that international terrorism has anthing to do with Iraq - no matter what we think of that conflict.

The majority of Iraqi's, at the time, were glad to have the coalition remove Saddam Hussein from office and, eventually, bring him to trial so that democratic elections could occur. This has happened.

Any criticism of the coalition's presence in Iraq, suggesting that the rest of the world will not be safe from terrorism as long as the allies are there, is pure pettifogging. A vile regime has been removed, and it will take time for Iraqis to take over. But it will happen, and it will take some time. Look what happened in Afghanistan and East Timor when they were left to their own devices too early.

Listening to the naysayers on Iraq and pulling out would be a tragedy that peace-seeking Iraqis would, rightly, never forgive the allies for.

Leigh,

Establishing democracies by invading countries is the least thoughtful method, especially when its the same coalition that installed, supported and funded the dicator(s).

An easy and less bloody way is for the US to establish relations with a number of political parties and movement in each country and assist democratic movements within.

According to C. Rice after her trip to Egypt, the 'democratic middle east' is a new vision triggered by Sep 11 attacks. The coalition need to promote democracy across all the middle east in an honest fashion rather than wmd and terror links propaganda to justify invading other states.

On Iraq, four years later and the only prospect of democracy seems to be a shiite pro-Iranian state.

I would of thought that as long as the US support Israels right to exist they will be a target whether they invade/liberate or give generously to other nations. They are in a no win situation.

Militant Islam hates everything about Western freedoms. What they hate most is to see a tiny democratic nation like Israel prospering and making there own dictatorships look pathetic.

The haters of Israel like to take a selective view of history and then use it to be violent to anyone who disagrees with them. Much of the media like to paint Israel as the agressors despite having to live for decades with terroist blowing themselves and multitudes of others up who are going about their daily business.

I personally thank God the US has the guts to defend Israel despite the numerous critics. If the US fails to support Israel (which I believe will happen one day) what we see now will be nothing compared with the terroism we will see then.

Leigh,Bush should have dealt with one problem at a time.They should have gone into Afghanistan and set up a moderate Govt that would give people the taste of freedom while also premoting education and good Governance.They should have controlled Saddham with sanctions and occasional force to keep him in line.Saddham was also a good was counter balance to the power of Iran.Now we have a situation of chaos in both Iraq and Afghanistan which is a ripe breeding ground for more terrorism.

Democracy may never evolve in the forseeable future in many Muslim Countries because of these extemist religious ideologies.How do we fight an ideological war when our opponents believe that their absolute god doesn't have to obey the laws of science and logic?The world will be flat two dimentional plane if Allah wills it.

It will take many decades to win this one,since it took the West Centuries to evolve it's present democratic system.

The Democrats may be able to enlist the help of other Arab nations to help find some kind of solution. The Republicans have rubbed most of the region up the wrong way and reduced the likelihood of any cooperative approach, and they didn't bother considering the likely response of the Iraqi people.

If they win, the first thing the Democrats should do is make sure every Iraqi man, woman and child knows Bush is no longer in charge.

Then they should acknowledge that nothing the American military does there can work because they're all American.

Then they should promise to quit pontificating, then quit pontificating and promise that from now on, all American aid money will go to Iraqis rebuilding Iraq for themselves instead of American contractors. Then they should actually do that too.

"Then they should acknowledge that nothing the American military does there can work because they're all American.
Then they should promise to quit pontificating, then quit pontificating and promise that from now on, all American aid money will go to Iraqis rebuilding Iraq for themselves instead of American contractors. Then they should actually do that too. "

Very true indeed Chainsmoker! Undoing the disaster which Bush
and his not very bright team have created, will not be easy.
As they old saying goes, its not what you say but how you
say it, that has been alot of the problem.

Disolving the Iraqi army was the first major disaster, its continued
from there. Lets face it, if Arab armies were in Australia
fighting, telling us what to do, how would we feel?