Are latest incidents the fruit of administration's "flypaper strategy"?

[prolesunited]

I'm sure many of you are familiar with the Bush administration's so-called "flypaper strategy." Basically, you open up the borders, let the terrorists flow into Iraq and confront them there — lure them into a smaller territory and smash them like bugs there.

If media reports are to be believed (I know, a big if), an increasing number of foreign fighters are entering Iraq. Perhaps they were involved somehow in bringing down the U.S. helicopter (Where did the alleged shoulder missile come from?)

Here's two viewpoints:

Flypaper: A Strategy Unfolds
Andrew Sullivan
If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.
<snip>

At some point, I'd argue, the president therefore has to make this strategy more formal. He has to tell the American people that more violence in Iraq may not in some circumstances be a bad thing. It may be a sign that we are flushing out terror and confronting it, rather than passively waiting for it to attack again. He has to remind people that this war is far from over, that the mission is still very much unaccomplished, and that this is not Vietnam.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030906

Another perspective
If it's going so well aren't we losing?

So if the killings are no big deal, like the GOPer Senator said last week (which one was he again?) doesn't that mean the flypaper strategy that is supposed to be taking the fight to the teroroists is failing? This of course illustrates  the scattershot bullshit the GOP and ChimpCo. have utilized to snooker the spin game into a heads I win, tails you lose shit-fest.

If our brothers and sisters, fathers, sons and daughters are getting killed and wounded... then we are "winning the war" by drawing the terrotists into attacking there and not here. If they aren't getting killed and wounded in large numbers, or at least spin that their arne't an alramin casuality rate (never mind that our causality and KIA rate is already higher than Vietnam)... then we are "winning the peace".

The spin framework is already set that they will pass off 100% contradictory news stories into the same "we are winning" propaganda.
cheers,
Mitch Gore
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2003/10/20/92452/864/23

Couple of questions:
• Do you think this is a good, effective strategy? Why or why not?

• Do you think the latest incidents are evidence that this strategy is now in play?

• How do you think the administration will spin this? Do you think they will point to it as evidence that their strategy is working?

• How do you think the families of these troops will react?

[kentuck]

1. A good question..

Where did the shoulder held missile come from? I'm sure this is something that is very worrisome to the military leadership in Iraq also? Are they American-made missiles or French missiles?

[LittleApple81]

2. WHAT ABOUT THE IRAQIS!!!!!!!!!!! I am so tired of focusing just

on the poor American soldiers who are NOT defending our country as they swore to do... they were taken there under false pretenses to make it easy for the Cheney, Bush, and BFEE cronies to get rich...

America: Iraqis are people. The are not cockroach bait, they are not flypaper. They are human beings. We poisoned them with depleted uranium for eons to come, bombed them, killed their children, destroyed their houses, humiliate them every day.

What is wrong with us?

[caledesi]

4. Well said LA81! nt

[trotsky]

3. 100% Evil Spin

I doubt the people who are attacking us in Iraq are able to leave the country and mount an attack on American interests or on American soil. They're just not skilled enough. These are simple guerilla-military-style hits, not terrorism in the 9/11 sense of the word.

But I have NO doubt that yes, they will spin every single soldier's death as being the prevention of dozens, or hundreds, of deaths in a terrorist attack on the general populace.

Many families, especially if they are strong * supporters, will probably believe this. Far easier to accept your loved one dying so that others may live than in a senseless, ongoing, bloody conflict (i.e., Vietnam).

It didn't have to be this way. Any number of things could have prevented 9/11, yet the * team did NOTHING.

[Philosophy]

5. So the more of our troops killed the better

We should hope they kill 100 American soldiers next week because that = 10000 American civilian lives saved from terrorists.

Just think if we had only known we merely had to send over 30 American soldiers for them to kill in 2001 we could have prevented 9-11.

[prolesunited]

8. Don't give them any ideas

I won't be too surprised when this turns up as one of their talking points

[StClone]

6. This is not a strategy

It is an excuse to describe what is happening.

But going by Bushco logic, if, if, if there really is a flood of terrorists going to Iraq, that's their first premise. If so...

Much of the world hates us. So if you extrapolate the percent of the world population that increasingly hates us moving to fight us in an expanse of Arabia, I think we lose big time.

"Project Flypaper" is not only stupid it is a long-term recipe with results far worst than Vietnam if followed to it's finality.

[Kinkistyle]

7. These fighters in Iraq are not terrorists.

They are soldiers. The guys who blew up the WTC did it with some box cutters and planning. Those people were terrorists. Its a much bigger blow to the U.S. psyche and hence, "terrorizing" to blow up a building full of hard-working civilians than a group of soldiers trained to kill and die for their country. Not too mention its easier.

The fighters in Iraq are no more terrorists than the Colonial Americans who engaged in guerilla warfare against the British Redcoats were.

[jumptheshadow]

9. The Iraq war has played right into the hands of terrorists

On edit: I am not directly answering your questions here. The "flypaper" theory is just too pathetic and ridiculous, and is an obvious ill-reasoned attempt for the shills to defend the indefensible.

1) Saddam had been contained with continuing international pressure. The Bush administration has been dangerously inept at winning global support, and, due to its impatient and polarizing attitude, was ineffective using diplomacy to avoid war.

2) The war on terrorism is not a conventional war. It should be a carefully targeted police and intelligence initiative waged in cooperation with other nations. The Iraq war has eroded cooperation and resources for the war on terrorism in this and other countries.

3) If the administration had wanted to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists it never would have exposed Valerie Plame, and as a result, put at risk everybody Plame had ever worked with in other nations. And why? Because somebody dared to question their shaky justification of the Iraqi war.

4) When you kill Iraqi citizens and destroy a country's infrastructure and national treasures, you are poisoning generations of minds against Westerners. This, in turn, will spawn generations of rage and terrorism.

5) Give the Iraqis democracy and you might end up with another unstable anti-Western, fundamentalist state. Was that your end goal when you triggered the war and the destruction?

6) Because of this war the American military is overstretched and demoralized. The Bush administration has shifted us from a position of strength to one of logistical weakness, and without good cause.

7) Because of this war the first response infrastructure to terrorism has been crippled in the United States. Much of our National Guard is overseas. Coast Guard cutters have been deployed offshore. The money that is funding the war in Iraq should have been used to equip the policemen, firemen and EMT crews that will respond to terror here and to fund the police and intelligence departments that prevent terrorist actions.

8) The money that is going to rebuild Iraq should have been used to bolster our economy, not weaken it. It should have been used for education, health care, veterans' benefits and small business credits here in this country. Instead, the Bush administration is bleeding our country, to the point where it might be too late to repair the damage.

The Bush administration has been a terrorist's dream and a military family's nightmare.

[Kinkistyle]

10. Precisely! Bush was a gift to Bin Laden.

Bin Laden was rooting for Bush in 2000. He knew with a war-mongering, weak-minded dunce like Bush in office, the setting would be perfect to cause the downfall of the U.S.

[prolesunited]

11. I just brought up the "flypaper" theory

to point out how pathetic and ridiculous it is.

I agree with all of the points that you made and probably will save it to my hard drive. Its a good talking point memo on why our invasion of Iraq was ill-conceived and destined to fail.

Thanks for your input!