Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win

[Edward Campbell]

Agreed, Red-Five but let’s not forget that somewhere down in the tangled roots of all this is Osama bin Laden who expressed what I think is a fairly widespread desire to make Arabia for the Arabs or, more properly and accurately: the umma* for the faithful.  While certainly not the only driver for al Qaeda et al is was an important motivator for many Muslims who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan and then joined the fighting in the Balkans.  I think it is only realistic to expect that some Muslims will ”march to the sound of the guns” and end up in/around Kandahar – especially a young, restless, dissatisfied group of young men who have discovered that they (given their culture and education) are ill suited to the real, 21st century, interconnected world.

I think that for many Muslims the problem is not what we are doing in Afghanistan; it is that we are, simply, IN Afghanistan and our mere presence pollutes the purity of the umma.


----------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah and http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?umma.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

The Jihadists may soon have other opportunities to qualify for their 72 virgins.......

....The Islamic Republic itself is expected to send 200,000 pilgrims, representing almost 10 percent of the total. Saudi officials claim that some 5 percent of the Iranian pilgrims have always been identified as members of the Islamic Revolutionary Corps and the Islamic Republic's various intelligence services. This year, however, the profiles of Iranian applicants for pilgrimage visas indicate that more than 20 percent may belong to the military or security services.

To these must be added professional street-fighters from the various branches of the pan-Islamic Hezbollah movement, which Iran created in the 1980s as a way to "export" Khomeinism to other Muslim countries. The movement's best-known branch, the Lebanese Hezbollah, has announced it will sending over 3,000 pilgrims this year - all paid for by Iran.

With so many men with military and security backgrounds in Mecca, the mullahs leading the Iranian pilgrims would be in a position to seize control of the space around the black stone of the Ka'aba (The Cube) and use it as a venue for political demonstrations. ...

Amir Taheri, New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/imperialist_iran_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=1

TEHRAN, Iran Dec 18, 2006 (AP)— Opponents of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took an early lead in key races in Iran's local elections, according to partial results announced Monday, with moderate conservatives winning control of councils across Iran.

If the final results hold especially in the bellwether capital, Tehran it will be an embarrassment to Ahmadinejad, whose anti-Israeli rhetoric and unyielding position on Iran's nuclear program have provoked condemnation in the West and moves toward sanctions at the U.N. Security Council....

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2733722

Friday, December 15, 2006
Bomb Blast! Violence Mars Iranian Election- One Dead

Update: At least two bomb blasts went off in Iran in the last 24 hours. One of the blasts was outside of the governate building in southeast Iran.
At least one person is dead!

The official Iranian Fars News reported that two bombs went off yesterday in southeast Iran!

Hardliner Islamists brawled with reformists on the streets of Tehran.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/12/bomb-blast-violence-mars-iranian.html

Trouble at home? What to do? Find someone else to blame....

Ahmadinejad must really believe his own rhetoric.  Why else would he want to pick a fight with the Sunnis (Saudis AND Jihadists) unless he really believes this:

Speaking to voters at a polling station in Tehran on Friday, Ahmadinejad claimed that the United States was already defeated in the Middle East. "They are like rubble, and we are like the flood," he said.

"That kind of talk can only lead to war," says Sami Faraj, an expert in regional security. "Ahmadinejad feels that, with the United States wavering in Iraq, nothing can stop him. The region may have to pay a high price to prove him wrong."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12172006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/imperialist_iran_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=3

Presumably he feels he has the Great Satan and the Zionists on the ropes and can open a second front.....or else he feels that he is on the ropes and must open a second front.  Perhaps this is his Operation Barbarossa moment?

Either way it is a little premature to be saying that the US is leaving Iraq and that the Sunni Jihadists will automatically spill over into Afghanistan.  They may well have to go through Shiite Jihadists to get there.

 

[GAP]

I think this is the result of the Democrate's rhetoric and the MSM streaming the "Get out of Iraq" idea to one and all. The US has defeated itself.

 

[a_majoor]

Much of the situation in Iraq is driven by Iran and to a lesser extent the Syrians, while the Taliban were the creation of Pakistan's ISI.

As Edward said, there are some tangled linkages, and there is currently an alliance of convenience (or maybe an understanding is a better word) between the Theocracy in Iran, the secular Ba'athists and the Wahhabi's fro Saudi Arabia against the West (as the only overarching power which can frustrate all of their aims), but they certainly have no love for each other and based on the fighting in Iraq and hints like the profile of the "pilgrims" heading for Mecca they may not even wait for the Western Alliance forces to leave if they feel they can achieve their goals now or that the West is too weak and decadent to sustain any efforts in SW Asia (much less Central Asia, East Africa or subsidiary theaters like Indonesia and the Philippines).

Dealing with Iraq is actually the key to defusing Iraq and probably will unhinge a lot of the activity in SW Asia and East Africa. Dealing with Pakistan in a way which does not destabilize the country further is the key to Afghanistan, but how that can be done is beyond me.

 

[KaptKain]

In addition, much of the violence in Iraq is sectarian,

Good point there. But I am not even thinking of them. Betcha bout half the sectarian "fighters" havent even left their own village/town/part of city. Its all the ones that flood from jordan/Chechnia<sp?>/africa/asia/and the rest of the middle east. The ones who as pointed out above have no place in a peaceful world..or for that matter changes since the dark ages.
I believe there will be lots of insurgents that will flood back to Afghanistan. The part of that I dont like is if Coalition actually pulls out of Iraq without cleaning the mess (it will happen with baby no balls bush in charge), the threat will be this.....
The insurgents will look at Afghanistan being the starting door (Russian invasion of afghanistan) and they will want it to bethe closing door of western "intrusion" in the middle east...at least i could see Irans top man saying words along those lines. Not much propaganda needed there from Iran or other strong voiced anti-westerners to achieve that task then.

Either way it is a little premature to be saying that the US is leaving Iraq and that the Sunni Jihadists will automatically spill over into Afghanistan.  They may well have to go through Shiite Jihadists to get there.

True, I hope it doesnt happen. But the possibility is there. By that part I believe it wont matter whether they are sunnis, shiite, kurds, whatever..one common goal they will all have to is clear the  M. East of western intrusion

 

[1feral1]

Most Insurgents/Terrorists are targeting coalition troops currently in Iraq. When the US does pull out I believe the Afghanistan mission will be 10 times more active and dangerous. Reason being is when the coalition pulls out of Iraq I believe the Insurg./terrorists will then carry over to Afghanistan and start really bringing the casualties in on us then.

US KIAs are usually about 90 per month, sometimes more, sometimes less, and one is to many, we all know that. One can add on a few more Coalition to that list monthly.

Local National body count, in Baghdad usually about 90 per day, and its tit for tat retaliation. Sunni vs Shiite, and in my view a civil war. Recently it was over 600 killed in one week in Baghdad alone. Over 100,000 LNs leave Iraq each month. You can't blame them, can ya. So, its murder at random, execution, and bombs of all shapes and sizes, and the tgts are primarily the locals in their respective neighbourhoods.

Sure attacks are up against coalition, but thats a monthly thing, and it just depends. Up, down etc.

The US will not be leaving in the short term, you just got to see the huge scope of this Operation, and you'll understand. If the US did leave prematurely, there would be no escape to A-stan by our enemies, but a dirty power vacuum here, with countless thousands sllaughtered, and an ultra extreme state being formed, pro shiite, and this would indeed anger the KSA, and equally anger Iran, so what one could have is a strange ballance of power, in stalemate, or a huge regional war with disasterous results.

To leave prematurely, would endanger the lives of future westerners for the long term, and I meaqn long term, plus creat so much more instability. IP and ISF are rife with graft and corruption, and its a shocker, let me tell yo!!! They simply cannot be trusted, and when areas are turned over to them (in my opinion), those areas seem to quickly degrade, and become much more open to IEDs and snipers all of a suddne, and all that hard work, gone, and good young Allied lives wasted for nothing.

The ISF and IP in my opinion need to have their senior management and middle management culled NOW. Sadly thats not the politically correct thing to do, although it may be the right one, as right now, money talks, and old party loyalities are hard habits to break.

My run-ins with the ISF and IP have always been rather brief, as we are always on the move, but I can sum uo by saying I trust them not even as far as I spit, however  I am polite, but I am ready for anything. 

Sadly, I hear it and see the carnage created all the time, like the huge blast I witnessed while on top of a building at exactly 1122h today. I wonder how many people had interchangeable parts after that.

Me thinks it will never end.


Cheers from another cold night in Baghdad,

Wes 

 

[xenobard]

I've been trying to decide where I stand on the Iraq withdrawal issue; trying to fathom the implications - not just for Canadian and NATO troops in Afghanistan, but for Iraqis and Afghans, the USA, the human race as a whole.  Like, if I were an American citizen and if the issue were put to a binding referendum, how would I vote.  When I asked myself this, I was struck with the magnitude of it.  The decision would impact so many people, perhaps - if you consider worst case scenario - even the survival of the human race as a whole.  Most people who clamor for troops to be pulled out now have the luxury of not having to think about that.  They know that their conviction on this matter doesn't have a binding effect.  So they can shout and holler whatever they like, be it 'bring the troops home' or 'stay the course', and don't have to bare personally responsibility for the consequences of their decision. 

I'm one who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other.  So what does that say about me? 

 

[1feral1]

Here they don't care about the human race, or yet alone themselves for that matter.

Its like living in a world full of rabid people, yet alone rabid dogs. The behaviour by all sides here is beyond disgusting.  All of them are hellbent on the mutual death and destruction of each other and the west, again all influenced by Iran (shiite), and Jordan, Syria, and the KSA (sunni). There is no balance whatsoever. I've been here since August, and in all that time, I have not seen one thing positive, but a gradual spiral down hill, with no light at the end of the tunnel.

That leaves you in the middle whether you like it or not, because the fuel of this mess also includes the growing cult of radical islam which you can find in many western cities, including in Canada, and just look whats happened in England with the recent arrests of 9. Don't think Canada is immune to this danger either. 

Iraq is only one piece in a complicated puzzle, so I would not blow it off by hiding your head in the sand pretending it will all be okay by lunchtime tomorrow.

In reality for the average Canuck, there is really nothing one can do, aside from being vigilant, perhaps realistic and realising what is going on around you in the big picture and at home, remembering that all of this can have implications within Canada. In many ways it already has. Things have changed already, and the good ole days we all once had not so long ago are gone for good. Canada's innocence and trust has been taken advantage of by many who bat for the otherside.

Whether we like it our not, we're here in this festering boil on the arsehole of the world. Staying here, it will be bad, and leaving it will be worse. With the infrastructure I've seen, the US are here for the long haul, regardless if the Dems get elected in the next US election or not. Whoever is in the presidental seat is always going to be criticised. Many say this is the new Viet Nam, and remember, it was JFK and his Democrats who started that one, not the Republicans, and over 60,000 lives lost over the US involvment in that war cannot be forgotten, nor can the growing list of KIAs in this mess either. Overall, the picture as I see it is grim, and I don't know how it can be solved. It  may take decades, and may never be solved.

Enjoy your freedoms many take for granted,

From Baghdad,


Wes

 

[DocBacon]

The UN bears the responsibility for much of this imbroglio: the authorising directives of the Security Council were quite clear on actions and consequences regarding pre-invasion Iraq, but the UN was typically mushy when it came to anything more than strongly worded diplomatic notes and stern glances across the Assembly hall.

Since the greatest source of smoke and noise at the UN came from the EU countries that were most involved in the Oil-For-Food Scandal, plus China and Russia, and since those countries are the ones facing the most pressing threat from the Islamists, I have these moments where I start to think like the Dem's in America: pull out the troops, let's not waste another Brit, US, or Canadian in the defence of Eurabia.  If the EU states think everything will be nice and quiet if the Americans would just pull out, then let's just do that.

However, after the Islamists sort out their internal differences (a few million dead later) they'll resume the march to take over the world, Insh'allah.  And where will they start?  How about France, with over 6 million disaffected Muslims already within their borders.  I wonder how the French will handle that threat to their precious national heritage?  In the absence of the New World to ride to the rescue, they'll learn to bow towards Mecca five times a day or lose their heads after the first Gallic shrug.

In the meantime, I muse, we'll keep our powder dry and wait here while those spineless EU bureaucrats get "converted" to Islam.  The TV news video of that played every night at dinnertime might even be enough  to get the American Dems up on their hind legs.  Who knows, maybe even Jack Layton would get a spine if he saw his Comintern buddies bowing to the black flag.

But I doubt it.

 

[T.R.Hayward]

Hello All,

I read this topic thread with interest, and just so there is no confusion I am entirely civilian with no military background.

One of the members named Wes posted the following:

"In reality for the average Canuck, there is really nothing one can do, aside from being vigilant, perhaps realistic and realising what is going on around you in the big picture and at home, remembering that all of this can have implications within Canada. In many ways it already has. Things have changed already, and the good ole days we all once had not so long ago are gone for good. Canada's innocence and trust has been taken advantage of by many who bat for the otherside."

I would like to say that there is something else that the average Canuck can do. Choose. Choose to support that which you believe in, and take action. I pray that every Canadian chooses to support the people who serve Canada's citizenry, and to show that support whole-heartedly.

"All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."

Another quote, I can't remember by whom.

Wes, I consider myself vigilant and realistic. I am humbled that there are Canadians like yourself that are defending our way of life at this very moment. Thank you for doing your part to protect Canada, and God Bless all who serve.

Thank you for your time and attention....

Best Wishes,

-Rick

 

[1feral1]

Thanks Rick, and although I am Canadian, I am in Iraq as an Australian, and a member of the Australian Army, not represting Canada, shy of my accent and numerous Canadian flag stickers I have stuck on absolutely everything, ha!

Overall though, its the big picture of standing one's ground against a large truly EVIL force, and it will be a long long time even before the tide turns. Its still an up hill battle not only here, but everywhere this true evil is, and that is right in your own country. Right now extremism is being fuled in private schools and mosques, influencing young minds, and thats wrong! It should be illegal, but the liberal left says otherwise.

Also too many men (and women) in political circles are truly doing little or nothing in Canada (and elsewhere too), and sadly, it might take a serious bloody nose to set them straight. These so called political figures, they don't wish to offend and loose votes of the minorities. Pretty sad putting their political futures ahead of the overall safety of mainstream Canadian citizens.

Now have we made a difference? No. Have we achieved anything, well, we survived. Personally, I think we know this region will always be volitile, and powder caig waiting for a fuse. Now with certain countries wanting nuclear power in the region, well, thats another issue, and its a very dangerous one.

Regards from Baghdad,

Wes

 

[Flip]

Wow!
Not an easy thread to read!

I'll preface this with; I'm a civilian.
As an employer I had the dubious fortune to employ someone with an "Islamist"
point of view. He was quite candid, because he thought because, my wife is
from German parentage, she would agree with respect to Israel, Jews and white people in general.  This was before 9/11 . He's been deported since.
Before Gulf War 1, I met a "new Canadian" who thought Saddam would wipe the floor
with the US forces.

The Larger threat is something Canadians cannot comprehend.
"Canada has no enemies" is a very popular myth.
This is what makes the threat so very dangerous.
Liberals in all liberal democracies are naive.
When I heard Nancy Pelosi ( the speaker of the house ) refer to the "Arab nation"
I shuddered.  Why legitimise the enemy?

Anti-Americans fail to consider what the world would be like if others were to take their place.  Imagine the Chinese or the EU as any more benevolent as leader?
If Islamists were to become a global power block there would be tyranny.
Examples; the Taliban, the Islamist government of Sudan, rebels in asia and so on.

The central question; I think a few bad guys, money and some influence would move into
Afghanistan. A fly in the beer.

The big problem could be how the middle east shakes out after.  Afghanistan
is the centre of our attention now, but could quicky become a side show.

Saladin's empire reclaimed would be a disaster for all life on the planet.
My cat could feel the effects.

I don't think George W. was wrong. Poor on the follow through, but not wrong.
Saddam was the Arab world's tough guy, he fought the law............
France Germany and the Russians were starting to rearm him.
If (and I do mean If) Saddam didn't have WMD, he soon would have.
George didn't "want to become the 21st centuries Nevill Chamberlain"

That being said, I think the US needed to get out before now ( I don't know how)
At this point I think they need to stay. From what I understand, the problem is
Baghdad, most of Iraq is a success.  

The real enemy is us. Liberal democracies are their own worst enemy in terms of security.
Case in point: the two creeps I met in my own neighbourhood.

 

[armyvern]

MODERATOR WARNING!!!

I have sorted through this thread and removed inappropriate post and responses to that post. Please keep this thread running smoothly and post IAW Army.ca conduct Guidelines located here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

The Librarian
The Army.ca Staff

 

[T.R.Hayward]

Now have we made a difference? No.

Wes

Hello Wes,

You have made a difference, you and every other Canadian soldier. You are giving concerned citizens hope....

Thank you,

-Rick

 

[SiG_22_Qc]

My solution? Divide the country in three.. There we go

 

[GAP]

My solution? Divide the country in three.. There we go

The Kurds in the North would love that, except Turkey would almost immediately invade to stop their own Kurd territory aligning themselves with the new "Kurdistan", The Sunni areas would degernerate to an insurgent dominated region, don't know who would be in charge, and the south and the major Basra oil fields would be annexed by Iran.

 

[xenobard]

Implications for Canadians in Afghanistan if Iraqi Insurgents Win

You know, when I was in 4th grade, we were all supposed to present a speech to the class.  It was around the time of the Air India Bombings, and so 'terrorism' seemed like a pretty good topic.  I had a lot to say about the issue even though I was only 9 years old.  One of my main points was about how we should never negotiate with terrorists.  If you negotiate with them and give them money in exchange for hostages, they will just buy guns with that money and use those guns for more terrorist activities.  If you release prisoners in exchange for a truce, other terrorists groups will escalate violence in other areas in order to force us to negotiate a truce all in order to get their buddies freed.  As long as terrorists think they can extract concessions from us they will continue in their terrorist activities.  We simply cannot negotiate with them. 

This was my speech in a nutshell.  Pretty tough topic for a 9 year old, eh?  Well Mom and Dad helped a bit.  I did, however, understand and agree with everything I said.  They didn't write it for me.  In fact, I expressed my points with so much zeal that I was chosen as a finalist to give the speech in front of the whole school.  The day came and I found myself up on stage in front of pretty much everybody.  I went through and began presenting it.  I had practiced it a lot and knew it by heart and so it was going well.  However, I soon noticed all the lights and all the shadows of all the faces in the crowd behind the lights.  I noticed the heat of the spot-lights on me and a bead of sweat dripping from my forehead.  I went silent when I was to give one of my main points.  I was frozen; I forgot everything.  Suffice it to say it was Ashley who won the competition with her rendition on why cats made better pets than dogs. 

Now, I have been thinking about that day, recently, because I believe I have come to the conclusion that although it might have been right not to negotiate with terrorists in those days before 911, before nuclear weapon proliferation in the middle east, before the extent of quagmire in the region became known, it might not be the correct position to take at this current time.  Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a time when negotiating and even offering concessions with terrorists may actually be the right thing to do.

So, considering this, perhaps a re-phrasing of the original question is necessary: "What are the implications for Canadians, Americans, Brits, and Aussies and all freedom-loving peoples of the world if we negotiate a peace with the Islamic extremists?  Is this such an absurd notion to consider?  Could no middle ground be reached?  Is there no other solution but a military solution?  If we could negotiate what is it to which they realistically concede?  Is there a way in which concessions could be exchanged and a peace reached without inviting other terrorist groups to use violence as a ploy to extract concessions in the future?  And, lastly, would brokering a peace with these terrorists necessarily be admitting defeat / allowing the terrorists to win?       

 

[Greymatters]

Interesting read so far....

 

[a_majoor]

From Celestial Junk:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/07/doctrine-of-unilateral-pre-emption.

27 July 2007
The Doctrine of Unilateral Pre-emption

Robert Tracinski looks at what a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would mean for Americans; and by extension, us. He offers a compelling argument which suggests that failure in Iraq, or worse yet, legislated defeat, could spell the neutering of America’s ability to defend herself:

    In September, the US Congress will receive a report from General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, reporting on the early results of his new counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq. No matter what General Petraeus reports, it is clear that the Democratic leaders in Congress will immediately put forward legislation requiring the president to withdraw American forces from Iraq--and it is also clear that a growing number of "moderate" Republicans in both the Senate and the House will support this legislation.

    What this means is that the decisive battle of the war in Iraq will not be fought in Baghdad this summer; it will be fought in Washington, DC, in September. If we lose this battle, defeat in Iraq will be guaranteed, because defeat will be legislated by Congress.

    [...]

    ... the political faction currently pushing for a US withdrawal from Iraq is also seeking to prevent America from waging war against Iran. On television yesterday, I saw a group of anti-Iraq-war protesters whose signs read, "End the War in Iraq, No War in Iran"--giving both conflicts equal billing. And notice also that one of Nancy Pelosi's first acts as Speaker of the House was to travel to Damascus to offer America's friendship to the Syrian regime, which is Iran's chief ally in the Middle East.

    This is a logical connection, because those who view a pre-emptive strike against the regime of Saddam Hussein as an unjustified act of aggression and "imperial hubris" will reject a strike against Iran (or any other enemy) on exactly the same grounds. Indeed, the left's goal in forcing a withdrawal from Iraq is explicitly to bury the doctrines of unilateralism and pre-emptive war once and for all.

continue reading ...

 

[edgar]

A Majoor, your link gets me a 404 error and I couldn't find the article with google, do you have another way to get that article?

Xenobard, if the Irish can bury their hatchets, anything is possible. What we need is some kind of Taliban Gerry Adams. Is there someone who is (plausibly deniably) arms length from the terrorists, who can speak on behalf of whatever constituency the terrorists claim to represent? I think terrorists must be hunted to extinction like malarial mosquitoes. Draining the proverbial swamps will require us to hold our noses and cooperate with some disgusting people, and an opener for the negotiations will be "there are certain people on your side we need to hang", but to keep fighting means inevitably that more Islamic little kids get caught up in the shooting.