Captain's Quarters -

Dead right CE.... Apparently even the Dems know this, as apparent by their funding of the war last week. Truth is, this war is going to be a long hard struggle; one that we must win; one that will likely go on for decades if not generations. Truth is, this war has already gone on for decades; we were just late to engage.

This is a false argument. Most of the Dems candidates withdrawal proposals calls for troops to stay and fight AQ in Western Iraq.

I know this is off topic, but I think a better name for Western Media is "Body Count Media" rather than "Mainstream Media". Seems like everytime I hear Iraq mentioned there is an accompanying body count.

you are getting HYSTERICAL captain.

The Red Scare is over - there are no reds under the beds.

Get a grip. Terrorists have no armies, no tanks no jets no nothin, at least the USSR had that stuff and the ability to vaporize the USA in 29-minutes.

USSR was a legitimate threat - terrorists are not. a nuisance at best. Yes a few folks die each year, but far far less than would be in a thermonuclear war - and far less than do driving to work.

The LAW ENFORCEMENT MODEL works.

GET PERSPECTIVE!...........you sound like Chicken Little with your meritless hysterical outburst!

Tom,

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Dem candidates' proposals for withdrawl so I'll have to take your word on support for Anbar, but I think that reflects just how out of touch the Dems are.

Sure, AQ had designs on Anbar province as a central front until U.S. and Sunni tribes decided their stay there should end - it's still a hotbed but what we've seen since the formation of the Anbar Council is the dissemination of AQ east into Baghdad and also the most visible "gathering" in Diyala province.

I'm sure it would be nice and comfy and cozy for a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama to support a few thousand U.S. troops out in Anbar...out in the wilds and away from major population, but that just shows how out of touch they are - if we have to keep troops in Iraq after withdrawl to battle AQ, we will see a blood bath for that small contingent of U.S. Troops - they will be forced to respond to AQ attacks in Baghdad and Diyala and would be sitting ducks.

It's my view that the true target of AQ in Iraq after they have won control in Iraq is to focus on Jordan - that will be their flagship "state" and a key position to affect Israel, Syria and Saudi Arabia - their campaign against Jordan would be relatively easy thru the western border of Iraq.

"A few people die each year"... yeah, over three thousand died in September of 2001. How many die each day in Iraq because of terrorists in groups such as AQI and AQ. Maybe you're the one who needs to get some perspective gaffo.

No, neither AQI or AQ have tanks or jets right now. But what if one fothese governments was overthrown by AQ, or what if one of them decided to join up with AQ? Then they would have that country's military at their control. It amazes me the lack of thought that goes into a post like yours.

gaffo

They don't have tanks but if you have your way they will drive the world's most powerful military out of Iraq..

You don't need tanks when you have one party unwilling to fight and a MSM, totally lacking historical perspective, ready to hand you propaganda victories to the enemy on a daily basis.

And as for the Democratic strategy of depolying out of Baghdad to fight al Qaeda in western Iraq ( they are now in fact more active in Diyala than Anbar) do you think that al Qaeda wouldn't move into Baghdad the moment coalition forces move out?

Using a law enforcement model alone to fight a war is mindboggingly stupid. We are not dealing with ordinary criminals. The enemy is using every weapon at their disposal. Other than a fear of the consequences of victory to the political fortunes of your party it's hard to understand why you would want to fight a war without the military.

I have no doubt your tune will change in 2009 - if your party wins the election in November 2008.

gaffo sez:

"Terrorists have no armies, no tanks no jets no nothin,"

"We have some planes"-Mohammed Atta, September 11, 2001

And he wasn't lying.

they don't need tanks. in fact they don't want them. their methods are more effective in terms of force multipliers. by simply rolling a few heads down an alley they take control over whatever area they want.

all around the world wherever root--they successfully take over. they take over not in the sense that they run the railroads etc but in the sense that they ruin your life. slowly at first as you take off your shoes to get on a plane to full body x rays to finally a bio metric card that knows where you are at all times.

while you are busy dealing with those "law enforcement issues" they get about killing infidels in large numbers. the fun is really going to start when iran gets the bomb, as they assuredly will. then the most pressing question will be "how much will israeli fused glass sell for on ebay?"......

They're using the ongoing conflict as a membership drive.

Just like the left predicted.

Let's deprive 'em of the opportunity. They're not after "victory" in Iraq; they want to export the battle with Great Satan. If we split, there's no more conflict to export.

Ed writes:
"The central front in the war on terror is Iraq. If we run away from AQ in Anbar, then we will wind up fighting them all over the Middle East, and perhaps North Africa, before we turn them back. We have to stop them now and keep them from the breakout they seek."

The Domino theory again? It was invoked by hawks in Vietnam and failed to materialize after the U.S. left Southeast Asia, and it will fail again now. al-Qa'ida wants us to STAY in Iraq, Ed. They announce it at least 2x every year. As long as we stay in Iraq, they continue to bleed us of lives, resources, and money. What don't you and the other conservative pundits and politicans get about that simple fact?

they have called for a jihad against Bashar al-Assad, despite his copious efforts to assist Hezbollah, the Shi'ite version of al-Qaeda.

I emphasize "despite" in the above to highlight that the captain seems to buy into the conspiracy theory that, despite their mortal hatred of one another, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and Hezbollah were all working in tandem to attack America.

Truly unhinged.

as stated by the capt,

"The central front in the war on terror is Iraq. If we run away from AQ in Anbar, then we will wind up fighting them all over the Middle East, and perhaps North Africa, before we turn them back. We have to stop them now and keep them from the breakout they seek."

iraq is just a battlefront. we will end up fighting them all over the middle east, africa, asia, europe and at some point here in the US. radical islam could care less about israel, palestine etc. they are simply recruiting tools. even cartoons come in handy.

among the disturbing aspects of this centuries old conflict is the current crop of naive, delusional folks who actually think they have something to do with causing the conflict. the "Borg" could care less what you do. the fact that you exist is the premise for your execution. read history.

" they want to export the battle with Great Satan. If we split, there's no more conflict to export."

Hilarious. Naivety of the first order. You weaken your enemy by conceding defeat to them!

Unlike the Taliban, who have local ambitions, al Qaeda has global ambitions and global reach. They can't be appeased and running away isn't going to stop them. They need to be fought wherever they are - and they are not only in Iraq but responsible for most of the killing of innocent civilians.

And they want us to leave them alone while they try to take over oil rich Iraq- which is why they claim they want us to stay.

Suppose we do leave? Do you really think anyone will be able to get al Qaeda to stop wreaking havoc without meeting their demands? And what do you think these demands might be?

Your wish to see a Democratic administration elected isn't worth the price you are prepared to pay.

And they want us to leave them alone while they try to take over oil rich Iraq

You seriously think a sunni radical group is going to take over an enraged nation of shia?

What's sad is that I don't doubt that your level of understanding is representative of the Bush administration.

Has Iraq not already become al Qaeda's breakout country? The presence of al Qaeda in Iraq was inconsequential before the invasion, compared to what you see today (per the CIA and other objective sources). Furthermore, Iraq has become a major training ground that exports both terrorism talent and funds to other parts of the world. Numerous reports indicate that Iraq is a profit center for al Qaeda that sends resources back to central headquarters.

Concurrently, Iran is now the most powerful nation in the Middle East and has started to project its influence much more widely than ever before. The revenue from high sky oil prices only add to its capabilities. Without a powerful Sunni regime in Iraq at its throat, Iran finds itself at a new apex of power.

Prior to the war in Iraq, al Qaeda was largely contained and highly vulnerable. Welcome to Bush's new world.

Do you mean to tell me that this " sunni radical group" as you call al Qaeda would be able to wreak so much havoc that they could compel the world's most lethal military to quit the battle?

Sunni radical group? Did your keyboard erupt when you attempted to type al Qaeda?

If this "enraged natiion of shia" can't defeat al Qaeda with the help of the world's most lethal miltary force what makes you think they can do it alone?

What facts do you have to support this absurd argument. Is it the the way these enraged Shia removed "this sunni radical group" from Fallujah in 2004?

Don't get me wrong. Unlike Hillary I don't wish to demean the sacrifices the Shia have made in their fight for their country. There is however no reason to believe they can deal with al Qaeda without our help.

Don't let logic get in the way of your opinion.

"Prior to the war in Iraq, al Qaeda was largely contained and highly vulnerable. Welcome to Bush's new world."

Oh yes the good old days. Saddam was in his box and al Qaeda contained- with operatives in only 60 countries. Just because you weren't aware of their activites doesn't mean they were contained. In fact, Bayam, Iraq has turned into a quagmire for al Qaeda.

Whereas after 9/11 they were heroes among Muslims- as a result of their tactic of killing innocent civilians in order to encourage Amerca to withdraw from Iraq al Qaeda's reputation among Muslims is now in the toilet and their leadership in Iraq has been decimated.

Your MSM-Democratic Pary narrative is not supported by the facts.

The tactic of fighting al Qaeda using only law enforcement methods was tried in the 1990s. It didn't work. al Qaeda is not going away. They can be fought in their currently weakened state - where they are being opposed by both Shia and Sunni in Iraq -or you can hand them a victory in Iraq and allow them to regroup before they attack again.

Perhaps Bayam you might like to argue that success is not a great recruiting tool. Be my guest.

The tactic of fighting al Qaeda using only law enforcement methods was tried in the 1990s. It didn't work. al Qaeda is not going away.

First of all, we did use military force against Al Qaeda in the '90s and had military plans ready to attack them that were very close to being used. Clinton simply did not have a political climate which allowed him to use force like Bush did (see Republicans accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he used military force against al qaeda.

Second, Clinton's strategy was not designed to eliminate al qaeda within the decade. To be honest, that administration was the first to ID this problem and was feeling it's way in how to deal with it. Obviously they didn't do everything right, but they did do some good.

And if your criteria of a foreign policy dealing with AQ is whether they "go away" or not (which, to be fair, is a pretty good barometer), then what's your take on Bush's war in Iraq?

My criteria is whether we destroy them by handing them defeat after defeat. or whether we hand them a victory and abandon those fighting to establish a democracy in Iraq.

And Clinton did wag the dog. He was all talk. He didn't take out bin Laden when he had the chance because he was stuck in a law enforcement mentality. bin Laden declared war on America but Clinton didn't think he could be killed unless he was resisting arrest. Michael Schuerer, no fan of Bush, has refuted Clinton's lies.

Bush chased al Qaeda out of their sanctuary in Iraq and removed the Islamist sharia-enforcing Taliban government. He then went into Iraq where he removed an ostensibly secular government which had killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

The suggestion that the second mission provoked Islamists to join al Qaeda but the first did not is sheer leftist anti-Bush lunacy.

It's hard to analyze events when you don't allow facts or logic to fetter your thinking.

patrick,

Iran getting the bomb is not much to get overly worried about. Even the radical Iranians have had to run a State for almost 30-yrs.

They understand Mutual Assured Desruction - even if you may not.

BTW MAD has prevented a World War for over 60 yrs - in a couple of words "it works".

This is why SDI is a bad idea - it disrupts the equalibruim of mutual anialation fears and makes one side more apt to push the red button.

We will get many more Nuclear Nations before all is said and done - including Iran. They will be reasonable, they don't want to turn their children to ash any more than you do.

and finally - bear in mind Iran is NOT formally declaired they are making a bomb - only building a foundation for power generation (yes we all know/suspect a bomb), so any "premptive" attack (very Unamerican behavior BTW - more Germanic or Soviet than American) will end up killing scores of civilians. I would not expect that any government that may end up replacing the radicals in Iran will be friendly to the Nation that attacked them - and I would expect that hatred to last at least 50 yrs if the body count is high enough.............and hatred in Iran with the power to make a bomb (for an attack will only delay the bomb - not stop it) MAY make selling to others who would use it more likely.

it would be called payback.

Though I think we could probably kill thousands and MAD would still prevent them from using their bomb.

Attacking Iran would be the height of insane foolheartness.

containment remains the best policy.

The US administration of the 1990s allowed Al Qaeda to strengthen and prepare for 9/11. Another US administration like that of the 1990s will no doubt lead us to a nuclear armed Al Qaeda and Hezbollah.

That what you want?

Well done Capt; again you "get it"!

And I see the usual assortment of Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Lunar Chiroptera show up, to demonstrate excactly how clueless they really are: "Jeffery", "bayam", "gaffo", and "jpe"!

What a pathetic bunch of Leftists, rooting for the Jihadis to win, because they suffer from Reflexive Surrender Syndrome!

Guess what Dale, Iran is Shia their mortal enemy is Sunni, AQ is Sunni, therfore and listen closely how can their be a Caliphate when the Muslim world is torn between to competing factions? Is AQ going to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure? I'm thinking they don't have too many engineers. AQ can't even defeat the tribal chiefs in Al Anbar, but somehow they can occupy all of Iraq? I suppose the Kurdish Peshmerga, which is 80,000 veteran militia fighters will just throw their weapons down to AQ too? Oh, and the SHIA Mahdi Army will surrender to their mortal enemies too?There is no Muslim monolith, they all fight among themselves. All the while Bin Laden is laughing his ass off in a cave in NW Pakistan. He can watch Americans die in Iraq fighting Sunni Nationalists,Shia Militias, common criminal gangs, Iranian(Shia) agents and a few AQ (that are being destroyed by tribal chiefs in Al Anbar) The US with almost 200,000 troops can't secure Iraq but maybe 2000 foreigh jihadists without air support can? Stop smoking crack.

gaffo,

apparently you are having a conversation with yourself. i certainly did not bring up any of the issues you thought to write about.

that said in reviewing what you wrote good luck! I take radical islam, sunni or shia, at their word. when they say, as they often do, they mean to liquidate israel and other infidels later on, i believe them. their death cult status helps me in my decision making. folks that role heads down ally's for sport will do a lot of things. now if they turn out to be kidding like saddam was--that's their problem--they will be dead and i won't be.

as to the constant straw man of attacking iran et al i personally am not in favor of that 20th century approach. i favor, as my previous statements over the years will attest, a top down approach. ie. kill the top leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan all on the same night without warning. take out the whole block they live on. let the civil wars begin. it is only through massive civil wars with perhaps 100,000's dead that the muslim world may transit from the 8th century to the 18th.

before you think that cruel, i ask how many millions did western civilization suffer as it made the same transit. just a mere 150 years ago we had 600,000 dead and million more horribly wounded as we worked out our demons. it is very naive to think that another civilization can make that same journey without some of the similar cost.

and as to this statement:

"They understand Mutual Assured Desruction - even if you may not."

you have much to learn grasshopper.......

"Is AQ going to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure? I'm thinking they don't have too many engineers. "

Another insumountable problem-in the mind of a liberal-no engineers on staff. As if they couldn't hire them.

"AQ can't even defeat the tribal chiefs in Al Anbar, but somehow they can occupy all of Iraq?"

The tribal chiefs have teamed up with American forces. If al Qaeda is so weak why do you want to run? What happened to the claim that tens of thousands of terrorists were streaming into Iraq? Now they're so weak the Iraqis can finish them off without our help? You will say anything to rationalize surrendering.

al Qaeda is in fact responsible for most of the killing in Iraq.

"All the while Bin Laden is laughing his ass off in a cave in NW Pakistan."

His fighters are taking a shitkicking Iraq. His leadership has been decimated. The brand name is in the toilet in Muslim countries and even Sunni tribes are fighting his forces. And he's laughing? In.A.Cave.Yet.

Don't let facts or logic get in the way of your opinion.

The suggestion that the second mission provoked Islamists to join al Qaeda but the first did not is sheer leftist anti-Bush lunacy.

That's funny, I don't recall making this suggestion.

Difference is, Afghanastan was warranted, A group that was being harbored the government attacked us.

Iraq was not warranted. Not only that, but we were told it would turn into a democracy that would help curb terrorism in the middle east (despite the fact that the CIA was telling them the opposite would happen).

Iraq has hurt our effort in the war on terror. I mean, it's the worst possible scenerio. An unnecessary act of aggression in the Middle East that has destablized the region and feuled the AQ jihad against the West.

"Iraq was not warranted."

In your opinion. Just to be clear, that means you would have no problem with Saddam having nuclear weapons - which he would have turned his attention to developing as soon as sanctions ended.

In any event, now that al Qaeda has made Iraq the central front in the Islamofascist War Against Western Civilization it is irrelevant whether Bill Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act was justified.

"The suggestion that the second mission provoked Islamists to join al Qaeda but the first did not is sheer leftist anti-Bush lunacy."

- Shipley 1. "That's funny, I don't recall making this suggestion."

-Shipley 2. "Iraq has hurt our effort in the war on terror. I mean, it's the worst possible scenerio. An unnecessary act of aggression in the Middle East that has destablized the region and feuled the AQ jihad against the West. "

Shipley, make up your mind. Jihadist weren't already commited to destroyning us after we removed the Islamist Taliban and chased al Qaeda from their sanctuary in Afghanistan? What really got their blood boiling was removing that secular regime in Iraq which had killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Do you not realize how stupid this anti-Bush narrative is?

In fact liberating Iraq was the best choice. Benefits.

1. Terrorist supporting, nuclear arms pursuing, Stalinist regime removed. (You would have preferred a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran?)
2. Libya abandons pursuit of nuclear weapons.
3. AQ Khan nuclear network exposed.
4. bin Laden learns that America will fight back.
5. al Qaeda's reputation destroyed among rational Muslims and al Qaeda leadership is decimated. Tactic of killing innocent civilians in an attempt to drive U.S. out of Iraq impresses MSM and Democratic Party but creates univeral opprobrium among Muslims.
6. Even Sunni tribes are fighting al Qaeda as Iraqis reject Sharia law. Now Al Qaeda can't get out of Iraq except foot first and in disgrace.
7. Iraqi democracy emerging.

What did you expect -a three week war?

I will have more good news to report after the Diyala campaign.

tom's et al

while your "connect the dots" rational for the mistake you call iraq makes sense to everyone predisposed to believe it, it misses the larger point that some of us having been making.

the killing field we call iraq could or would be called something else--the fact that it is actually in iraq is strictly coincidence. the central point is "the killing field" was coming whether you/we wanted it or not. bin laden and crowd declared war on us. his comrades in crime include hamas, hezzbollah, iran, syria, sudan and al sadr to name a few. each conspires to have their own killing field made with excuses that western apologists are only to eager to believe. they mean to fly the flag of radical islam worldwide.

historically the pattern is always the same. it's hard to remember but hitler, stalin etc all had what appeared and were believed by millions in the west, many apparently valid reasons for invading neighboring countries. al qaeda means to bring sharia to the world and there's nothing you can do about it except kill its proponents. as to the myth that iraq is a "fund raiser" for these folks is laughable. all of life is a fund raiser for these death cult murderers......

Patrick,

Assasination of National leaders is illegal under international and US law.

There is a reason - if we can do it, they can in trun do it to us.

Result is a more unstable world order, via the breakdown of the Rule of Law.

We call this stability Diplomatic immunity.

like MAD, it is old school containment and not kooliad neocon based.

that is why it works.

the killing field we call iraq could or would be called something else--the fact that it is actually in iraq is strictly coincidence.

Boy, did the Iraqis luck out by winning that lottery.

We created this opportunity for AQ to recruit train and kill American soldiers. And now AQ is telling it's recruits who want to go to Iraq to kill Americans, that they're needed elsewhere. And they're going elsewhere.

Iraq is drawing more people into this jihad than Afghanastan. Many people in the ME understood why we attacked the taliban and AQ. We had cause. Iraq is a different story and is strenghthening AQ cause in the ME and swelling its ranks.

Just to be clear, that means you would have no problem with Saddam having nuclear weapons - which he would have turned his attention to developing as soon as sanctions ended.

Yeah, that's it Terry.

In an April 17 report written for the United States government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, said battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.

“There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.

A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28exodus.html

Iraq is hurting our cause in the war on terror.

"Boy, did the Iraqis luck out by winning that lottery."

Every survey I've seen says the vast majority of Iraqis are glad that Saddam was removed. They are also much more optimistic about their future than the MSM would have you believe. The big losers in Iraq are al Qaeda, MSM and the Democrats. Unlike these latter two groups Iraqis realize the insurgency will not go on forever.

BTW, Saddam killed a minimum of 25,000 per year in his 24 year reign of terror. This does not include the one million killed during his wars and the 50,000 per year (according to Unicef) infant deaths because of sanctions. Fewer than 100,000 innocent Iraqis have ben killed during the liberation and pacification. The mission has therefore saved innocent lives even while being carried out.

tom et als,

you continue to think that there is a cause and effect relationship going on here. you think, i believe naievely, that things we do create jihads/jihadis. there is nothing we/you can do to increase or decrease radical islamists being recruited. they are coming, have been coming and will continue to come until they are all dead. yours was the same thinking as the appeasers prior to WWII.

gaffo, stop with the laughable tripe about killing terror leaders who coincidently happen to be leaders of state being against international law. we can and will kill all leaders if they are deemed to be terrorists. that short debate was settled when reagan put a few missiles down kaddafi's chimney back in the 80's. why we have not killed the persons in question goes a long way to understanding the disgust that many americans are feeling about the war on terror. we are not fighting this war to win. we are fighting for a tie.

Ed's post on Iraq being the center of some type of war is simply not correct.

The proper center is around Afghanistan and Pakistan.

To help folks determine which area is important to place military and non-military resources use what professionals call the "Center-Of-Gravity" of military targets.

Simply "kill" all living things in a region and see whom is affected to the greatest degree. "Destroy" all in Iraq, who loses? AQ forces not much. U.S. forces, most of the standing forces the U.S. can muster. "Destroy" all in Afghanistan, South-East Region and Pakistan, North-West Region, who loses the most? AQ forces, Very little U.S. forces.

Center of combat for military resources is Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Attacking Iraq was a blunder.

There are other tests to apply but post would be too long.

Advice: Pull out of Iraq. Retool and Refit. (You are destroying your military; most folks don't understand that even simple non-combat resulting patrols wear out men and equipment). After refit, place most forces in Afghanistan for operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any U.S. leadership must remove the Pakistan safe zone, or an attacking force will never achieve a useable result in Afghanistan. While the Afghanistan situation could be already past the point of good results; Iraq certainly is.

Terry Gain said:

Fewer than 100,000 innocent Iraqis have ben killed during the liberation and pacification. The mission has therefore saved innocent lives even while being carried out.

Can you show us where you got this # from? Tks.

TyCaptains

Here's my source. This is an anti-liberation organization, but they seem otherwise honest in their reporting of casualties. They actually place the numbers at around 70,000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"The proper center is around Afghanistan and Pakistan."

James

Your post is nonsense. The enemy's forces are amassed in Iraq. They have only a marginal presence in Afghanistan. You want to fight the enemy where they aren't, not where they are. Brilliant.

Besides there is no need to make a choice. America can fight a two front war.

We aren't about to attack Pakistan.They are a sometimes useful ally. While the leadership of al Qaeda is hiding in caves in Pakistan their soldiers are concentrated in oil rich Iraq, which has great strategic value.

Afghanistan is under control for now but if we withdraw from Iraq al Qaeda will redeploy to Aghanistan. If Democrats don't believe oil rich Iraq is worth fighting for I can assure you a return to significant fighting in Afghanistan will prompt demands for immediate withdrawal notwithstanding the politicaly correct nature of that front.

Withdrawing from Iraq will send the mesage to those fighting tyrannical regimes that America can't be trusted and will convince al Qaeda leadership that bin Laden was right- and that what took place at Mogadishu is the rule, not the exception.

When you are attriting the enemy at a fearsome rate (in the words of General Petraeus) it's best to keep fighting. One of the problems leftists have in understanding the war is that the leftist MSM doesn't report successful missions and enemy casualties. No wonder you think we're losing. To get the complete picture you have to go to sites like The Fourth Rail.

Other than providing a temporary reprieve and boosting the fortunes of the Democratic Party, there is nothing to be gained by abandoning Iraq to al Qaeda.

"you continue to think that there is a cause and effect relationship going on here."

OF COURSE! - as in ALL THINGS!

We call this REALITY.

" you think, i believe naievely, that things we do create jihads/jihadis."

Its called "cause and effect" - look it up.

Others call it REALITY.

"there is nothing we/you can do to increase or decrease radical islamists being recruited. "

Utter bullshit.

We are talking about fanaticism its beleif system - not death and taxes or the rising of the sun!

What is learned can be reformed-unlearned.

"they are coming, have been coming and will continue to come until they are all dead."

Except for each one you kill - you also accidently kill one or two civilians, who have one or two loved ones which one of the two decides to join the terrorists to take revenge upon the killing of his innocent father by you!!!

- SO, we in fact do generate more of those we kill, and I hope you are ready to kill over one billion tough guy!

they will never be "all dead" as long as you are generating more while you kill!

Iraqnam is and remains a Fubar.

Terry Gain,

Thanks for replying. I figured you were relying on IBC.

Just so you know, IBC openly admits that the casualty rate is much, much higher.

This is the chicken and egg question. Before Islam, the Middle East was Christian. So who has the first right to the land.

TC

I'm aware IBC claims their count is low. That's why I bumped up their figure by a third.

My point is that whether one looks back or forward the emphasis on lives lost during the insurgency while ignoring the state of affairs under Saddam is disingenuous.

Over the next 25 years there will be a significant savings of lives as compared with the lives which would have been lost during the reign of Saddam and his sons; to say nothing about the difference in quality of life once law and order are achieved.

Terry,

I hope this doesn't come across as an attack on you but I think it's impossible to state with any confidence just how many more civilian casualties have occurred beyond IBC's #s.

It might be a third, it might be 5x. I don't think we'll ever know.

I do agree that Saddam was a bad, bad man. I don't think any of us will cry a tear over him.

I don't know if post invasion, the casualty rate has increased per annum.

I do know it's more chaotic.

I do know that if Iraq can be stabilized, it will be better than if Saddam were still in power.

I do not know if invading was the only way to achieve this.

gaffo,

as i said before you have much to learn grasshopper--i just didn't realize how much.

to help you down the path ponder this. your mere existence creates jihadis. we are in the predicament that israel finds itself with hamas. by their very constitution hamas declares that israel must cease to exist. there is nothing that israel can do in their behavior that will change hamas's goal.

with that in mind you really should do some research starting with the muslim brotherhood and working forward to the writings of bin laden. he's counting on folks just like you. folks who don't understand the nature of our enemy. while the tactical significance of iraq as a battlefield is a totally acceptable debate, akin to history buffs discussing the merits of gettysburg in the context of ultimate defeat of the south, it has nothing to do with the origins of the war itself.

i'll leave you with someone more knowledgeable about these matters than either of us who said very clearly:

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah

thankfully he's dead now.........

here's the bio of the godfather of this incarnation of radical islam--civilization's recurring nightmare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb