Do you think that Iraq war had increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat ?

Question

It was proved by a full report of the CIA given to Georges Bush.

I took that from an encyclopédia :
The capital, Baghdad, fell on April 9, 2003. On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. The initial success of U.S. operations had increased President Bush's popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups. As the situation deteriorated, Bush's May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech would be criticized as premature.[156] The Bush Administration was also criticized in subsequent months following the report of the Iraq Survey Group, which did not find the large quantities of weapons that the regime was believed to possess. On December 14, 2005, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[157] Bush nevertheless continued to assert the war had been worthwhile and confirmed he would have made the same decision if he had known more.

Bush nevertheless continued to assert the war had been worthwhile and confirmed he would have made the same decision if he had known more.

President Bush shakes hands with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Iraqi elections and a referendum to approve a constitution were held in January and December 2005. From 2004 through 2007, however, the situation in Iraq deteriorated further, with some observers arguing that the country was engaged in a full scale civil war. Bush's policies regarding the war in Iraq met increasing criticism, with demands within the United States to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.

In 2006 a National Intelligence Estimate asserted that the Iraq war had increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat.
The 2006 report of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker, concluded that the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating".

While Bush admitted that there were strategic mistakes made in regards to the stability of Iraq, he maintained he would not change the overall Iraq strategy.[160][161] On January 10, 2007 Bush addressed the U.S. about the situation in Iraq. In his speech he announced the surge of 21,500 more troops for Iraq, as well as a job program for Iraqis, more reconstruction proposals, and 1.2 billion dollars for these programs.[162] On May 1, 2007, Bush used his veto for only the second time in his presidency, rejecting a congressional bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Answer 1

Absolutely no doubt about it in my mind. By the way, we are not at war with the Iraqi people, so it would be called an occupation. There are going to be some people who answer you with, "better here than there" or "you can't just let the terrorists win". However, keep in mind that Iraq did not have a terrorist problem before we invaded and drew Al Queda in to target our troops. The "war on terror" was just an excuse to empire-build and control Iraq's resources.

Answer 2

There's little doubt that radicalism has increased in Pakistan's west, and had increased within Iraq, though the latter seems to be settling down considerably. And the threat to Iraqis of terrorist attack is obviously also increased. On the other hand, the networks of some of the more dangerous groups, of which al Qaeda is the most notorious, have been disrupted, so their capabilities are in some respects curtailed worldwide, and they're certainly having a tough time in Iraq now. After all that's said, it's often thrown out as an argument against the war, and that is short-sighted. Even if it's all true, it still doesn't argue against fighting.
By the way, the 3rd generation war was over when Bush said it was. There's no reason for criticism there. He was slow to realize we'd moved into a purely 4th generation war, and I suppose technically he didn't change strategy, but he certainly changed the operational-level conduct of the war when Petraeus and the surge went in.
It pays to watch for these little details. Inexplicably, the administration hasn't explained to any real degree what it's doing, and you certainly won't get any education from the mainstream media.

Answer 3

Way back in like 2006 the White House Intelligence Committee released a report in which they tried to deny their direct role in their fueling the radicalism of the Iraq war.

HOwever the National Intelligence Estimate quickly debunked that and further appraised that since 9/11 and then the US occupation of Iraq, there had been a rise in "global terrorism" and asserted that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, had spread across the globe.

Answer 4

Yes, I do. There are no credible links between Iraq and 9/11, and we're basically refereeing a civil war in that country- and alienating an already turbulent part of the world in the process. Places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are logical places to go if you're serious about fighting terrorism; Iraq is not. As for Saddam, while I wouldn't deny for a second that he had a horrible human rights record, I don't believe for one second that that had anything to do with why that war was declared. His contempt for human rights was known for many years. Lastly, in the interest of avoiding having words put in my mouth, this criticism of the war in Iraq is aimed not at the soldiers who were dispatched to that country, but to the people who sent them there in the first place (the Bush administration and Congress).

Answer 5

Yes -- according to most Pentagon and US intelligence department estimates.

Not only have the specific terrorists groups -- Al Qaeda at the top of the list -- been able to regroup and reform while our attention has been elsewhere (in Iraq), but the Iraq effort has also cost us in other areas.

Because of the drastic depletion of US resources, our troops are currently unable to respond to any other terror threat -- and that condition will take years to correct, starting AFTER we'd withdrawn at least half of our current forces from Iraq.

Answer 6

No I believe not fighting when an enemy attacks us is the thing that increases the Terrorism threat. Look at what was going on in the 90s if you think I am wrong.

Answer 7

No i think it brought the Islamic religion to the foreground.Mainstream if what you will,something the world thought as a backwater religion is now being recognized in the mainstream.Radicals,in the Islamic sect are now going to be recognized,but its up to the people with Islamic fundamentals to weed them out,and explain what their religion is all about.They will have to clean up their act now if they want to be seen as credible

Answer 8

noper. been that way since 1979 when carter allowed the radicals to take over iran.

before that? no plane high jackings etc...
iran started and financed the majority of attacks since then.

what it has done is bring out all the terrorist rats from their holes and into iraq to attack like cowards iraqi children and our troops.

when they fight our troops face to face, they are wiped out like the rats they are.

it's only an EXCUSE by lefties and morons who doubt the serverity of the radicalization of a majority of muslims.

do you think all the terrorist attacks in the 90's in russia/chechnya, indonesia, phillipines, thailand, sri lanka, united states, yemen, iran, iraq, saudi arabia, afghanistan etc...should i go on? were all a result of our being in iraq? of course not.

Answer 9

Yes, it has made things 1000% worse

Answer 10

Oh well, at least it is now contained in Iraq and not all over the world and even in our back yard before we started kicking their asses.