to find the problem in suggesting foreign fighters joined the Iraq war because of Abu Ghraib

In conjunction with my previous post about using America's foreign policy as a justification for terrorism, the ultimate culmination (and baselessness) of the viewpoint was illuminated in a November 2008 Washington Post article written by a former interrogator, who takes at face value foreign detainees' suggestions that they joined the fight because of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Think about how inane this is.  These detainees are arguing with a straight enough face to convince smart people that their sense of morality and justice was so offended by pictures of torture that they joined groups that beheaded and tortured Muslims and Americans alike, and they carried out attacks against innocent Muslim civilians.

The author of the article does not mention (or maybe never considered) that Al Qaeda in Iraq was not exactly a resistance unit.  After all, it was led by a man who was conducting terrorist operations in Jordan by 1999.  These foreign fighters who were so disgusted by pictures of nudity and stress positions joined a group who instructed followers to use torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Oddly enough, these people who were so disturbed by pictures of torture seemed to have an affinity for drawing extremely descriptive torture methods to apply to their own detainees.

 Clearly these people are offended by the torture of Muslims


Incredibly, the author unwittingly contradicts his own argument by listing the actual reasons why these fighters were joining Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Here he attempts to explain how different interrogation techniques improved our standing in Iraq.

We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money...It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. (emphasis mine)

So the author actually believes that the policy of torture at Abu Ghraib led these people to join Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite the fact that they "turned out to despise Al Qaeda in Iraq."  And why would these fighters who joined the fight because of Abu Ghraib turn around and start fighting WITH us against the insurgent groups?  The author never sees the holes in his logic.  Perhaps that's because the author admittedly abhors the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo policies as being against his "moral fabric" and "inconsistent with American principles."  
In actuality, that paragraph deflates his own argument and better explains how foreign fighters actually came to join the fight. There's no real phenomenon to it.  First, most of the foreign fighters came from Middle Eastern countries like Iran and Syria that are already virulently hostile to the West and have been for decades, living in regions that inculcate anti-Americanism among its youth.  And though they comprise a very small percentage of Muslims worldwide, there are radical Muslims spread across the globe who are inherently and reflexively hostile to the West.  In addition, in lawless war zones, fighters can be bribed and bought.  After all, the Sunni Awakening itself that turned around Iraq consisted of paying Sunni tribal chiefs.  

Abu Ghraib may have been added incentive and motivation for fighters, but it's ludicrous to suggest that Abu Ghraib alone was the casus belli.

to know Christopher Hitchens destroyed the "war on terror" excuse for Hasan

When Major Hasan conducted the Fort Hood massacre, it was one of those relatively rare events where both the important facts of the case were crystal clear (within 24 hours or so) and the suspect's past had a rather long paper trail. Here we had a career Army man shouting Allahu Akbar while mowing down innocent comrades, only months after national agencies were alerted to the fact that this guy took his religion a little too seriously and was contacting a pro-jihadist imam who "spiritually guided" some 9/11 hijackers.

Not surprisingly, many people (especially liberals) were hesitant to reach conclusions centered around Hasan's faith, out of deference to political correctness, which others pointed out was exactly the type of deference that the Army and feds showed in ignoring Hasan's red flags throughout 2009.

But as the always in your face Christopher Hitchens notes, the explanations/excuses made for Hasan began to imply that the real cause of the massacre wasn't a pro-jihadist overly devout Muslim going nuts, it was either the harrowing war tales Hasan heard as part of his job or it was Hasan's (supposedly appropriate) growing level of disgust with America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody has ever bothered trying to explain why others with the same job as Hasan have never snapped on their own comrades. But Hitchens illustrates even more bothersome aspects of liberal reaction to the Hasan case.

to consider fears of a terror attack at KSM's trial overblown

Charles Krauthammer is probably the conservative writer I respect most, and I agree with most of what he wrote in his most recent article.  However, Krauthammer briefly pays lip service to an idea being trumpeted by some conservatives, including Rudy Giuliani, that holding a trial in Manhattan invites a terrorist attack.

"Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the courtroom, making KSM a martyr and turning the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security."

I'll admit that KSM's trial is an inviting target.  But KSM will not be the first terrorist tried in New York City.  And moreover, New York City itself is what makes an inviting target all on its own.   There have been nine known plots against New York City since 9/11, including two in the last 6 months.

"New York City will remain a terrorist target for many reasons other than the Gitmo Five trial. It is also interesting to note that none of the city’s other high-profile terrorism trials has ever resulted in a retaliatory attack against the city."

Anybody who plans to attack Manhattan during the KSM trial would likely plan to attack Manhattan regardless.