For all the bashing of George W, wasn't it the Clinton Administration who fostered Al Qaeda in the first place?

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:45:05 -0400

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/iraq111698b.htm

By Vernon LoebWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, November 16, 1998; Page A17 President Clinton's first explicit call for a "new government" in Baghdad and his pledge to implement a new plan for arming opponents of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein heartened opposition leaders yesterday. But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 18 at 2015 4:46 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:46:22 -0400

Perhaps we should just keep going and blame President Lincoln?

Response by CSM William Payne made Oct 18 at 2015 4:53 PM

CSM William Payne — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:53:31 -0400

If only we had listened to Oliver North about bin Ladin.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 18 at 2015 4:54 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:54:27 -0400

I am not sure who fostered Al Qaeda besides the originator of Wahhabi Islam in the last 19th century in Saudi Arabia Sgt Spencer Sikder. Certainly the Clinton administration missed their "opportunity" to take our Bin Laden when he was in North Africa. However they did seem to realize how serious a problem he would be in the future [God only knew at that point].
In the 1980's Bin Laden looked at us as the enemy of his enemy Russia. This was after the Islamic revolution if Iran and the dismantling of our spy network when William Buckley was tortured and killed in Lebanon in 1984 I believe. We lost many of our eyes and ears that year.

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Oct 18 at 2015 5:25 PM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 17:25:10 -0400

Listen,
We can scapegoat, finger-point, and assign blame all we want. This is what we have now. What is going on in the Middle East is on us primarily. The question we ALL need to be asking is what the Hell are we going to do about it (other than the scapegoating, finger-pointing, and assigning blame)?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 18 at 2015 6:04 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:04:52 -0400

The issue in the Middle East Region is "historical" in nature. It is not the result of any single President or Administrative policies. We can go back to "at least" WWII when talking about any country that ends in 'Stan.

Any attempt to blame a particular President for the woes of that Region is by someone who doesn't understand a fraction of the history of that region.

Simply put, we can play the "If GWB had resolved X, BHO wouldn't have the problem now." to which, the next person will respond, "But WJC could have done Y" leading to to "GB could have ended this with the first Gulf conflict" ad nauseum... all the way back to the Soviets holding the Region in check, so on and so forth.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2015 6:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:08:49 -0400

Intel and history shows the previous admin prior to W dropped the ball several times. Just like the current admin is doing now.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Oct 18 at 2015 6:21 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:21:10 -0400

Maybe the Clinton Administration can be credited with that, but We The People have allowed this to become a systemic problem, actions just like this have been taken by EVERY president in resent years. The issue is not who did what, it is that we only concern our selves with the immediate outcome when we need to look at the long term affects. we are not baking a cake here, our actions will affect generations.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 18 at 2015 6:34 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:34:37 -0400

Laying the blame on one man, even a powerful man such as the President of the United States, for the rise of scourge on mankind is short sighted at best. Al Qaeda is rooted in a Stone Age ethos that was fertilized by the mistakes of many people in many times. The theological musings of a warrior prince, the isolation of mountain peasants caught up in a modern world for which they had no frame of reference, the political machinations of petty tyrants, and the heavy handed interference of Western diplomats with their superior airs, all contributed to the rise of terrorism and its many agents including Al Qaeda. Placing blame is not only foolish, it's simply a diversion from the real problem: What the hell are we going to do about it now? Sadly the elected leaders of We the People don't have a clue. That's true regardless of their political ideology and politics. Maybe it's time to consider solutions as primitive as the evil we are confronting.

Bill Whittle on PJTV has spoken frequently of the need to periodically "mow the grass". Evil, like our lawns, simply grows and we need to cut it back when it becomes unruly. Seems reasonable to me...

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Oct 18 at 2015 7:04 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:04:53 -0400

well, yes and no, Clinton wasn't nearly aggressive enough after the Cole bombing, he should of done more then what he did for sure but al qaeda in a great sense was a Reagan issue as Reagan supported bin laden against Russia.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Oct 18 at 2015 7:43 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:43:13 -0400

You can go back further and find out that Reagan supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, and that led to the rise of Osama bin Laden. Also, Reagan propped up Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Since GWB linked Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein, you have to also blame the GOP if you're going blame Clinton.

Response by MSG Alfred Aguilar made Oct 18 at 2015 8:44 PM

MSG Alfred Aguilar — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:44:40 -0400

Bush is not to blame for Al Qaeda however, he is to blame for taking a baseball bat to a beehive...

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Oct 18 at 2015 8:57 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:57:29 -0400

So, here's how I see it. No one can predict the future - right or wrong, people and Presidents are going to make mistakes. What I have a problem with is not having the integrity to stand behind your decisions and instead fool the people into going along with you. If you have a case to go to war in Iraq, then make the case and let the chips fall where they may - don't decide to go to war and then fit the "facts" to justify an already made decision. That is dishonest.

Response by SSG Jason Penn made Oct 18 at 2015 10:02 PM

SSG Jason Penn — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 22:02:10 -0400

Not at all.... Look to history for the answer. In the 1970's the communists took power in Afghanistan. This turned into a civil war when a group of anti-communists stood up to fight the government. This group adopted the name of who was predominately the membership - the Taliban (Arabic for students). The Taliban knew they couldn't last on their own, so they enlisted the help of the Mujahideen (translated from Arabic as ones who fight/struggle and comprised of mostly foreign fighters from other Islamic countries). The communists were having a hard time of it, so the Soviet Union got involved (sort of like how we were involved in Vietnam.) The Soviet involvement is what determined the need (for lack of a better term) of the CIA to fund, equip, and train the Mujahideen. One of those Mujahideen fighters was a young Saudi by the name of Osama Bin Laden. When the fighting ended, Osama developed a list (database) of Mujahideen that Osama felt that he could call on if the need should ever arise. The name of his new organization was Al Qaeda, which is translated to "the Base" and refers to the "database" that Osama had developed. The organization began due to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and threats to Saudi Arabia. Osama offered his services to the Saudi Royal Family, but was flatly turned down and the Saudi Royals turned to the U.S. for help. This pissed off Bin Laden who then devised a plan for retaliation for the "slight" that he incurred. So, in a manner of speaking, it was the Reagan administration that fostered Al Qaeda.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 19 at 2015 6:50 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:50:33 -0400

Considering President Clinton had the chance to rid the world of Nin Ladenand did nothing, I'd lay this at his feet

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 19 at 2015 7:55 AM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:55:23 -0400

I recommend reading Ghost Wars for an understanding of how Al Qaeda came to be in Afghanistan. It's a long and difficult read but very insightful. It goes as far back as the 70s for our involvement in Afghanistan. Still, the influences of UBL and his way of thinking stem from his mentor, who was disgusted with western culture. Afghanistan was a place where there were essentially too many cooks in the kitchen. The CIA was all over the map on their analysis and in many cases ignored the operatives on the ground. After the Soviets left, we essentially did as well and this is where the Arab side of Mujahedeen moved in and took control of the vacuum space. Mujahedeen actually broke up giving us the Afghan Northern Alliance as well.

Even with all that said, one thing you point out on the Clinton administration side, is his compliance in forming the walls between each of the Intel/Law enforcement agencies (by law). No one was able to share the available information which, put together, may have led to discovering the capability and intent of the 19 hijackers before they launched their plan.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 19 at 2015 12:47 PM

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:47:13 -0400

Adding another comment for effect... All those looking to solely blame a single administration (or party for that matter), are either not being honest or are not that well versed on the event that led up to the formation of Al Qaeda. Whether we're talking about Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush W., each had something which could have been done better, but not necessarily the foresight to know what their action/inaction would do. Also, many of us have no idea what they alternative would have been had we not gone into Afghanistan, had UBL been captured/killed prior to 9/11, or if our intelligence agencies did get their hands tied when they were prevented by law from sharing information.

What matters is how we deal with the threat now, knowing that whatever we do, just might actually create another spin off similar to how we got Al Qaeda from defeating the Soviets, we're getting ISIS from taking on Al Qaeda. We still need to fight and we will likely have to continue fighting for many generations to come. Honestly, I think the biggest mistake we make is that we do not work harder at introducing our own culture and style of government on the countries we defeat. Instead we walk on eggshells around the issue and fail to offer the freedom of choice to those who might actually be interested in it.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 2:21 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:21:34 -0400

While some blame may be placed on the Bush administration even though he had only been in office eight months, it clearly goes further back to at least the Clinton administration. If Ollie North testified during the Itan Contra hearings, one potentially could even point at Reagan. But I think Clinton's policies of action (or inaction) did little to keep Al Queda in check.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 4:05 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:05:26 -0400

Well, the article you included talked about groups in Iraq and that were Shia. Since Al Qaeda is Sunni and pretty much got its start during the Afghan-Soviet war, it doesn't seem to relate. IMO

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 4:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:25:44 -0400

Presidents get blamed for everything. Al Quaeda, ISIS/ISIL, Hamas, Hezzbola and alll the other terrorist groups hate the US (and Israel) no matter whose in office.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Oct 19 at 2015 6:59 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:59:08 -0400

I want to thank everyone for their insight. Some very thoughtful insight I must say. I learned a great deal. While some of it I knew and expected my question would instigate comments, the lessons from many of you was worth posting this question. Thank you!

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Oct 20 at 2015 1:19 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 01:19:35 -0400

Hmmm... I say if Reagan hadn't funded, trained, and equipped the Mujahideen, the Taliban would have never been born. After all the Taliban was developed to eliminate that jihadist group.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 20 at 2015 5:03 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 05:03:18 -0400

I guess some pathetic people need a kind of paternalistic reassurance that they are being protected from the big bad wolf. And their chosen protector is the grossly incompetent George W. Bush.

So they bash clearly true memes about his responsibility. Boy and girls, George Bush is a miserable failure.

Walt

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 5:27 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 05:27:38 -0400

Yes

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 20 at 2015 7:13 AM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:13:54 -0400

I love blaming me some liberals for screwing things up, but I love calling bullshit more!

Clinton fostered Al Qaeda...BULLSHIT! He screwed us with NAFTA, but the GWT? NOPE!

It was the British with Sir Lawrence, or maybe it was Wilson, or Reagan, or Iran, or the person the had not invented a working crystal ball yet.

Response by SFC Brian Ewing made Oct 20 at 2015 11:27 AM

SFC Brian Ewing — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:27:48 -0400

No!! Now before you get angry allow me to say that I'm no politician and have no political affiliation whatsoever. If you want to blame anyone for Al Qaeda then you have to start with where they came from which were the Mujahadeen (<<

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Oct 20 at 2015 11:35 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:35:12 -0400

Ridiculous and false.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 12:59 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:59:31 -0400

Did we (the USA) not create Al Qaeda?

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 1:24 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:24:05 -0400

Clinton was also responsible for the bank deregulation.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Oct 20 at 2015 1:49 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:49:21 -0400

The Clinton Administration missed their Opportunity to Dismantle Bin Laden and the Taliban! But George W has ample time and intelligence to do something about it! Instead he took the longest vacation in History!

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 20 at 2015 2:34 PM

SPC Luis Mendez — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:34:23 -0400

NOPE! It's a well known FACT that OBL started with the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, after the USSR invaded in 1980 and with the full support of the Reagan Administration. Which also supported Saddam Hussein against Iran by providing him with Chemical weapons. The bombing in 1993 of the WTC plans were underway before Clinton took office, in other words while Bush Senior was president.

I think it's a useless exercise trying to defend or justify GWB actions and behavior before and after 9-11.

His incompetence before and his subsequent lying about the WMD, Saddam involvement and Al-quaida in Iraq, are IMO inexcusable. The man should be charge with something, he's getting away with a lot.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 20 at 2015 3:10 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 15:10:17 -0400

Probably, but you could go even further back with this logic... Unfortunately, I think what happens on the field is intertwined to "us" (our national ongoing efforts on foreign soil) regardless of the administration, although one could make it look less severe than the other [or perhaps the opponents of (that current administration)]. In conclusion, nothing happens overnight in this context, and perhaps Mr. Clinton was paving a way for the invasion in 2001 and 2003, who knows..... We've meddled specifically with that region before him.

Response by SGT Felicia King made Oct 24 at 2015 8:42 PM

SGT Felicia King — Sat, 24 Oct 2015 20:42:27 -0400

I've always respected George W Bush and especially his father as president. They were both great presidents, not sure of the younger brother though. Clinton I like, but he was more an economist president. W was a war president, and his father was just the wise one.