The next front in the War on Terror

[preemptingyou03]

Let's take a look at the near future in the War on Terror: one year from now.

All of these thugs and criminals in Iraq will be crushed. Iraq will be on the right path. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will be caught. I believe OBL and al-Zawahiri will be captured in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Both nations will be on the verge of elections.

What is next in the War on Terror? Do we confront another rogue regime, such as Iran? Do we demand the dismantling of other terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah? Do we attack these group's bases, and if we do, do we remove the state sponsor that gives them shelter?

Do we confront North Korea? Saudi Arabia has paid for Pakistan's nuclear bomb, which thus paid for Iran's, North Korea's, and Libya's nuclear programs. The Saudis still preach hatred. Do we put pressure on them?

What is the next move?

 

[gaffer]

I think bin laden will be found in iran. We seem to be waiting for some sort of upraising in iran. If that doesn't come soon I think we will be heading that way next. Its the birthplace of radical islam. iraq is the perfect jumping off place to do it from. It might be done the way afganistan was done, with special forces and local forces. Syria could be next. That will definately take a full military invasion. With those two down the saudis will fall right into line. I think the saudis will try to set up a british style government with a royal family that has no real power.

North Korea will remain contained for a few more years until things are secured in the middle east. But eventually we will confront them as well. Providing they don't do something stupid, which they do on a regular basis.

For historical information. Truman did not attack North Korea. NK attacked South Korea and the American troops stationed along the dmz at the time in 1950. And that war was north korea and later china verses the UN. It was a UN war which is why it ended in a stalemate. There was never a treaty. Only a cease fire. We have had a 50 plus year cease fire with NK and china. That cease fire could be declared over at any time.

 

[preemptingyou03]

I see that you believe an invasion of Syria would require a "full military invasion," while Iran could be done from the inside, like Afghanistan. I think it is fair to say though, that Syria would be a quicker war than a war with Iran, for three reasons: a) if we had Iranians revolting, with American special forces to rid Iran of the Mullahs, and terrorist elements within it, it could take longer, much the way it did with the Northern Alliance, b) Iran has a stronger military than Saddam did or the Taliban, and c) Syria is a much weaker nation, and a much smaller one, than any of the countries we have confronted.

A war with Syria would last less than two weeks. However, the terrorist war, after the invasion, (what we're going through in Iraq) would be tough. There are Hezbollah terrorists and Hamas terrorists in Syria.

People here are saying we need more forces in Iraq, more forces in Afghanistan... but they don't understand we are already a big and strong military. But we're too slow. We need to become quicker, faster, and lighter. We need more covert operations and special forces. We need more revolts.

I think we will open up a new phase in Iran if things continue to go sour there. If they fail to turn over Saif al-Adel and Saad bin Laden, and if we get intelligence that Osama is in Iran, we might have to overthrow the Mullahs.

I don't understand this precedent: Osama attacks us, Taliban harbors him. We ask the Taliban to hand him over, they don't, we attack them. Why not the same with Iran?

Why is it when al-Qaeda attacks somewhere outside the US, we don't demand that the Iranians hand over Saif al-Adel? As far as I'm concerned, the next time Hezbollah commits a large scale attack, or the next time al-Qaeda does something and Iran fails to hand over al-Qaeda members... Iran should be confronted. That's what we did in Afghanistan.

If we want to remove the Mullahs through preemption, we can look at their nuclear weapons.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think Iran is going to be the next choice. While Syria would probably be a good target, Israel complicates things. I think we should probably try to take out as much of Al Queda around there world and free the rest of the Muslim people before we start helping Israel that directly.

 

[preemptingyou03]

To me, as long as Israel gets out of areas that aren't theirs, I see nothing to be ashamed of in siding directly with them. Their terrorists are ours. We can't see any difference between Hamas and al-Qaeda.

But I think you are right. I think Syria will, eventually, take the path Libya took.

 

[Zhukov]

The question with Syria is, do they want their government overthrown? I haven't heard anything like that, so I don't know. If there isn't any internal popular support for regime change, we won't go in. I'd guarantee it.

With Iran, there seems to be some internal support, and I could see us doing what we could to encourage and assist that once most of our troops are extricated from Iraq. Airstrikes, arms, what have you.

I think, that once our troops are out of Iraq, many will be placed in a threatening manner about North Korea.

I don't believe we will ever invade North Korea, but I do believe any further anti-terrorist action in the Middle East will be limited to cruise missiles and special forces.

I believe the President may be dead set on resolving the North Korean problem once and for all before his second term is out. I think he appreciates that this problem has been lingering for far too long, and now is as good a time as any to deal with it. We are still early in the son's reign over North Korea, China isn't interested in making enemies with us or our money, and Japan is too important an ally to ignore such a volatile situation so close to them. It is a destabilizing element in the whole region, and that's bad for bussiness.

If the President could accomplish that, that would make for a shinning star on top of his already awesome legacy.

I think he and Powell can do it.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I believe the President may be dead set on resolving the North Korean problem once and for all before his second term is out. I think he appreciates that this problem has been lingering for far too long, and now is as good a time as any to deal with it. We are still early in the son's reign over North Korea, China isn't interested in making enemies with us or our money, and Japan is too important an ally to ignore such a volatile situation so close to them. It is a destabilizing element in the whole region, and that's bad for bussiness.

If the President could accomplish that, that would make for a shinning star on top of his already awesome legacy.

I think he and Powell can do it.

One can only hope. In regards to Syria, I think they will take the path of Libya and dismantle their WMD and start handing over leaders of Hezbollah. In regards to North Korea, I think, like you said, serious pressure will come down on Kim Jong Il. Nobody wants this madman to get nukes. If he does, he'd either blackmail us all, our sell them to some Islamic terrorist network. As for Saudi Arabia, I feel we need to continue to put pressure on them to crack down on terrorist funding and the preaching of terrorism in their schools. The same goes with Pakistan.

However, Iran... I feel will get what is coming to them. And it will be much different than Iraq. It will look more like Afghanistan. I would see, sometime around 2006 or 2007, an uprising of Iranians against the Mullahs in Iran, and a revolt, aided by a preemptive American invasion. Maybe 30,000 troops tops. We know Rumsfeld is trying to make our forces smaller and quicker and faster.

The war would last about four to six weeks, and eventually, al-Qaeda operatives in Iran, as well as their Mullah leaders, would be caught. And I would guess we would find weapons of mass destruction this time.

Bush will leave office and his record will show the following:
- Set precedent, strategy, and doctrine of preemption and regime during the next few decades to come, as we fight the War on Terror.

- "The 9/11 - War President."

- The removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, replaced by a democratic government.

- The removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq, replaced by a democratic government.

- The removal of the Mullahs in Iran, replaced by a democratic government.

- The capture of the likes such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Chemical Ali, Saif al-Adel, Hambali, etc.

- Killing the likes of Uday Hussein, Qusay Hussein, Mohammed Atef, etc.

- The peaceful reformations of the Saudi Kingdom, the Pakistani government, Syria, and Libya.

- The dismantling of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

- The pressure on Arab states to hand over any terrorist in any terrorist group.

- The first American leader to state Palestine should be a free state.

- The leader to change homeland security and intelligence gathering for decades to come.

- The leader to change the face of the military: quicker, lighter, faster... and ten times more gung-ho.

- The leader who demanded North Korea disarm, and put economic pressure on them, until their communist system and regime fell apart.

Then, Rudy Giuliani has a lot to work with in 2008.

 

[Zhukov]

- The begining of the reformation of Islam and the Middle east.

That's historic.


...and I think Chemical Ali is confirmed dead. Blown away in the early stages of the war.

 

[preemptingyou03]

No, he was believed to have been dead, and then they realized they didn't kill him... they didn't announce that he was really alive until they caught him though! Gotta love politicians...

 

[Zhukov]

So he's already been captured? I missed that. When did that happen?

 

[preemptingyou03]

Aug. 21st, 2003.

 

[preemptingyou03]

The Chemical Ali situation has me iffy about if we really killed Mohammed Atef, (Osama's original #3 man). They "believe" he's dead and al-Qaeda operatives have said he is dead. But, we also thought Chemical Ali was dead, until we captured him.

 

[Zhukov]

Somehow I completely missed that one...oh well.

Yes, I don't want to hear "we believe" so-and-so is dead. I'll believe when I see the body and the DNA evidence.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Regardless, our hunt for these high value targets is the most understated success in the War on Terror. I can't wait for the day we capture that punk Osama... what a symbolic day that'll be.

 

[Annie]

I think Iran is next. The mad mullah in Iraq is preaching Iraninan garbage-aimed at the poor, which Iran has so many of. Iraq was and will be again, a rich country. Iran is hell-bent on nuclear weapons, I think we will stop that.

Syria will be taken care of by Israel, after the wall is completed.

 

[Annie]

Thought you guys might be interested in this 'real media' editorial:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18444.htm

April 9, 2004 -- NORTHERN IRAQ
IRAN and Syria are at war with the United States. In Iraq. Now.

Washington refuses to admit it. The Bush administration claims that the struggle in Iraq is about the future of the entire Middle East, but won't concede publicly that other countries in the region are extensively involved. And the outcome they seek is exactly the opposite of what we hope to achieve.

The bloody combat throughout Iraq this past week didn't only involve Iraqi Ba'athist insurgents and al Qaeda. The Iranians vigorously prepared and supported killer-cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's "Mahdi" militia. Iranians are active agents in the widespread terrorism in southern Iraq. And, according to intelligence shared exclusively with The Post, approximately 30 al Qaeda executives have been allowed to operate from Teheran, feeding agents into Iraq with the collusion of the Iranian government.

To the West, Syria has been increasingly bold in its support of the Sunni-Arab insurgents in Fallujah and elsewhere in the Sunni triangle. Our Marines killed Syrians in Fallujah. They'll find and kill more. Syrian security services are deeply involved in this fight - and in murdering Americans.

The worst news is that, contrary to Washington's wishful thinking, the Iranians and Syrians - as well as various terrorist groups - are cooperating. In the Middle East, the enemy of my enemy truly is my friend. Political marriages of convenience are one of the region's oldest traditions.

Iran, Syria and al Qaeda share one common goal: Preventing the emergence of a free Iraq. They want to stop democracy and social liberty dead in their tracks. And they're willing to throw in all their reserves to do it.



They also want to strangle Kurdish freedom before it spreads. In addition to fighting for their liberty for generations, the Kurds have committed an unforgivable sin: They supported America, fighting beside our soldiers against Saddam.

We could use their help again now - but the Coalition Provisional Authority refuses to accept it. While young Americans die.

It's madness to turn down the help of capable allies just to make our enemies happy. And it's going to cost us still more American lives.

Intelligence shared with this paper indicates that the Coalition's enemies plan another wave of attacks over the Easter weekend, with a series of dramatic strikes on Sunday. At present, our forces are doing their best to block the terrorists, but it's a desperate struggle against time. If we're successful, Easter Sunday may be blessedly quiet. But our enemies are determined to cover Christianity's holiest day in blood.

It's a brutal indication of how low humanity can sink. While U.S. forces have over-indulged religious sensitivities (some much exaggerated or even imagined) in the Arab world, Islamic extremists want to drown our holy day in gore.

It's a great American strength that we respect all religions - we must never do less. But we have been fools to pretend that gangsters in clerical robes are men of faith. As this column has long maintained, killers only understand an overwhelmingly forceful response.

Still, there's good news, as well. Contrary to depictions in the broadcast media, our Marines and soldiers are performing superbly - as they always do when the diplomats and politicians allow them to do their jobs. We can only hope that our counter-offensive - so long overdue - isn't terminated before our enemies are so badly and so graphically crushed that they cannot recover.

Our troops are fighting hard. But they're winning. And most of the encounters do not rise to the level of battles - in military parlance, they're engagements. They're tough for the Marines or soldiers involved, but we can do this better than any other military on earth.

But we can't afford to stop too soon - as we did in Desert Storm and at the close of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Quitting before the enemy is finished has been a tragic American pattern. Don't worry about al-Jazeera's coverage or what the Saudis think. Just keep killing the enemy.

And we have allies. Some of the Iraqi security forces have given their best for their reborn country. In Iraq's north, the Kurds have done a superb job of watching our backs and keeping their region quiet.

One old soldier's maxim applies: In the heat of battle, things are rarely as bad as they look. The victory belongs to the side that has the greater strength of will. Just don't quit.

The current fighting pits us against a wide range of enemies, some of whom want to turn back the clock by centuries and others who hope time will stand still. We are fighting a great battle for human freedom. It's outcome may well shape this entire century. Every effort we make is well worthwhile.

And as for those who declared so fervently, before Congress and the American people, that deposing Saddam and liberating Iraq was a diversion from the War on Terror, just look at who we're fighting now: Al Qaeda. Extremist militias. The Iranians. And the Syrians.

The War on Terror is here and now. In Iraq.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

 

[preemptingyou03]

Would Iranian and Syrian actions justify us removing those regimes... like, now?

 

[Annie]

I think we will and should move against Iran within the year. It becomes more obvious with each passing day that they are supporting and sustaining problems in Iraq. This is not even counting that they have been giving sanctuary to al Queda, Taleban, and terrorist members of bin Laden's family.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I think we will and should move against Iran within the year. It becomes more obvious with each passing day that they are supporting and sustaining problems in Iraq. This is not even counting that they have been giving sanctuary to al Queda, Taleban, and terrorist members of bin Laden's family.

we won't need to move in on iran because it will fall apart from within by their populous youth. syria is where we should be looking.

 

[Annie]

I disagree, the mullahs have been very successful so far at putting down the protests. They have also been increasingly active in Iraq.