NIE: AQ Still Top Threat
The Associated Press reports that the national intelligence estimate says that al-Qaeda remains the biggest terrorist threat to the American homeland. The NIE also warns that Hezbollah in Lebanon may also start planning attacks on America in the near future if it thinks we may attack Iran, and that non-Muslim terrorists may soon join the fray:
The terrorist network Al-Qaida will likely leverage its contacts and capabilities in Iraq to mount an attack on U.S. soil, according to a new National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the American homeland. ...Al-Qaida is likely to continue to focus on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets to cause mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and fear. "The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles."
The group has been able to restore key elements it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders.
The group will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological or nuclear material — and "would not hesitate to use them."
Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group that has conducted anti-American attacks overseas, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.
Non-Muslim terrorist groups probably will attack here in the next several years, although on a smaller scale. The judgments don't name any specific groups, but the FBI often warns of violent environmental groups, such as Earth Liberation Front, and others.
The NIE specifies that the main threat from AQ comes from Iraq. It calls AQI the most visible and capable unit of AQ, and the intel community believes it will expand its operations as soon as it is able. The other units of AQ have been hamstrung by global cooperation in the war on terror, but the report frets that AQ can outlast that cooperation.
This will put some pressure on Congress this summer to consider its Iraq operations carefully. It makes the likelihood of a complete withdrawal less likely; the US has to keep pressure on AQI to prevent them from gaining enough strength to launch attacks here. It could, though, allow Congress to press for an AQI-only policy in Iraq, where the American military presence in Iraq gets reduced and redeployed to the Sunni areas only to fight AQI. That would probably not satisfy the anti-war wing of the Democrats and certainly would not please those who see Iraq as an opportunity to establish democracy in the Middle East, but might allow the current Salazar amendment to gain the middle ground.
The addition of non-Muslim groups should intrigue readers. It's not a big surprise that groups like Earth Liberation Front use terrorism for political purposes, although they don't usually kill people in their attacks. What's most interesting about this is that these groups have grown from a law-enforcement issue to one that attracts the notice of intelligence agencies. The age of terror has taught these groups that spectacular attacks get grievances noticed. When papers like the New York Times refuse to print editorial cartoons because it might offend Muslims, even though the images form a core part of the story they report, that gets noticed. When AQ videos go viral on the Internet, it teaches a lesson to other groups -- that violence allows one's message to get wide dissemination, and even support.
AQ's the top threat -- for now. When every unhinged grievance group learns these lessons, they may drop down the list.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 17, 2007 8:22 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (37)
Posted by Ted | July 17, 2007 9:33 AM
It is because their ideas and positions are fueled with hatred ( often self-hatred) and a sense of inferiority that there will always be those willing to strap a bomb to a child. No group is so small it can't use terror as a weapon. The days of the terrorists will contine as they intimidate and shock until we acknowledge them for the cowards they are and stop trying to placate them. This will happen but it will probably cost many, many more American lives---and on our soil!
Ted
Posted by docjim505 | July 17, 2007 10:24 AM
Cap'n Ed wrote:
What's most interesting about this is that these groups have grown from a law-enforcement issue to one that attracts the notice of intelligence agencies. The age of terror has taught these groups that spectacular attacks get grievances noticed.
To my mind, this is one of the most important reasons that we MUST win in Iraq. If we lose, if people around the world see that we can be forced to capitulate after taking a (relative) handful of deaths, then we only encourage other groups to try their hand. Don't like the US policy toward Israel? Blow up some Americans! The rest will trip over themselves to change the policy! Don't agree with the US stance toward global warming? Set off a few car bombs in NYC or DC or LA and watch that policy get changed!
I know, I know: Iraq is not in our vital national interest, we shouldn't have gone in the first place, Bush is a liar, blah-blah-blah, so comparing terror in Iraq to potential terror elsewhere is unreasonable. But why SHOULDN'T radical groups try their hand at terror? Libs like to say that AQ has "won" because (gasp!) we've changed some of our laws and way of life due to their threats. Why shouldn't ELF or Hezbollah or the KKK or any other group of whackos with an agenda also try to make us change to suit them?
If we'll cut 'n' run from Iraq because it's expensive and we've lost 3500 men, what WON'T we cut 'n' run from if somebody can make us pay some similarly small price?
The Benedict Arnolds might as well hang out a big sign:
ATTENTION LUNATICS! IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES, JUST KILL A FEW AMERICANS! WE'LL BE HAPPY TO CHANGE OUR WAYS TO APPEASE YOU!
Posted by bayam | July 17, 2007 10:45 AM
The report highlights the sad reality that by invading Iraq, Bush created a staging ground for future attacks against the US and enabled al Qaeda to evolve into a global movement. Iraq has become al Qaeda's greatest asset- a source of funds, expertise, and inspiration for terrorists around the globe. Even if you opposed the invasion of Iraq, our country needs to remain a presence in Iraq to try and reduce the al Qaeda threat.
At the same time, Lugar and his colleagues are right in that the US needs to evolve a new strategy. The American people have lost faith in Bush, who in more time than it took FDR to save the world from fascism hasn't been able to secure the road from Baghdad to its airport. Without effective change, voters will demand nothing short of a complete pull-out.
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 17, 2007 11:14 AM
If we'll cut 'n' run from Iraq because it's expensive and we've lost 3500 men, what WON'T we cut 'n' run from if somebody can make us pay some similarly small price?
This is all about perception. Those calling for a troop withdrawal do not do so because of AQ. In fact, most want troops to stay in Iraq to fight AQ. People are calling for a troop withdrawal because Iraqis are fighting each other in Baghdad and the US can't do much to stop it. Troops are dying. There's no political progress being made and it's time for Iraqi forces to step up.
The reality is that AQ is not forcing us out. Of course, they will claim victory if we reduce troops. They probably will WHENEVER we leave.
We can't let the fact that AQ will claim victory be the reason we stay in Iraq. We have to do what we think is best.
And doc, if you're so worried about encouraging suicide bombing and the use of this kind of tactic, then I would think you have a big issue with our invasion of Iraq since the NIE shows that AQI is not the greatest threat to the US. Just a reminder, AQI did not exist prior to our invasion and grew out of the instability that followed.
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 17, 2007 11:19 AM
That should be ... "AQI is now the greatest threat to the US."
Posted by gregdn | July 17, 2007 11:29 AM
Although withdrawing from Iraq would 'embolden' AQ in the short term, in the long run it would deny them one of their best recruiting tools.
Posted by markg8 | July 17, 2007 11:33 AM
If AQI is the best they've got then Al Qaeda must hardly be any threat at all. Malcom Nance at Small Wars Journal says AQI only totals about 1500 members and they're so popular even the Iraqi Sunnis hate them. And no wonder, they're equal opportunity nutcases. They'd just as soon blow up a Sunni mosque as a Shiite bazaar.
If we get out of Iraq those Saudi kids will be exterminated post haste. If one of the major objectives in the GWOT, long war , WW4 or whatever Repubicans are calling it these days, is to get Arabs and people of the Islamic persuasion to reject jihadi loons then getting out of Iraq and letting Iraqis drag the lifeless bodies of AQi through the streets for all to see will be a huge propaganda victory. We can''t do it for 'em. They have to do it themselves. Let's let them.
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 17, 2007 11:40 AM
The more I think of it, the Iraq invasion was one of the biggest self-fulfilling prophecies in history.
They made the case before that Iraq was a terror state that was working with AQ.
Well, 4 years after the invasion, Iraq is really a terror state and home of the most dangerous AQ threat to the US.
Mission accomplished?
Posted by crossdotcurve | July 17, 2007 12:47 PM
NIE: "Pure Pablum"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/experts-unclass.html
Posted by John | July 17, 2007 1:08 PM
As others have noted, AQI did not exist before the administration lied us into invasion of Iraq. It is their warmongering, incompetent warmongering at that, that has brought us to this current dangerous state.
Iraq has become the number one recruiting tool, training ground and even raison d'etre for the revitalized larger al qaida. The administration is directly responsible for al qaida's resurgence, not to mention its continued existence. This administration of crooks and liars has made us infinitely more, not less, vulnerable to new terror attacks.
Posted by jr565 | July 17, 2007 1:08 PM
Tom states,
"Well, 4 years after the invasion, Iraq is really a terror state and home of the most dangerous AQ threat to the US.
Mission accomplished?"
If you believe that, then shoulnd't your focus shift to dealing with the threat where its at its worst? Mission most decidely not accomplished, considering Iraq is home of terrorists we're supposed to be fighting, and where they are sending their followers to fight us.
Again you're still stuck on should we have gone in there in the first place. Considering the open porous borders in the ME and the jihadists penchant for travelling across said borders to fight the infidel which has happened many times before in history ,noone should be surprised that al Qaeda would be able to like move around and stuff. THat's what happens when you're an organization not tied down to a specific country. That's why Richard Clarke was worried osama might "boogie off to Baghdad".
You can say that Bush brought this on by invading Iraq, but by the same token you also have to then accept the consequences of what you're counseling as well. You're arguing taht we should, in the best interest of fighting a war on terror run with our tail between our legs and leave IRaq as a terror state and home of the greatest threat to the US. And that's good for us how?
So then it wouldnt merely be a genocide that we woudl have to deal with, but rather the terrorst state and home to al Qaeda? And that's good for us how?
Posted by jr565 | July 17, 2007 1:16 PM
gregdn,
Although withdrawing from Iraq would 'embolden' AQ in the short term, in the long run it would deny them one of their best recruiting tools.
I'm assuming you forgot to put /sarcasm after that post. Otherwise, please explain the logic. It would definitely embolden them in the short term but how would it deny them one of their best recruiting tool. The new recruting tool would be we proved the US is a paper tiger. We are victorious, and that would decrease their recruiting how?
Posted by docjim505 | July 17, 2007 1:33 PM
Yeah, Shipley. We'll tell 'em!
"We're not leaving 'cause you made us! We're running leaving 'cause we WANTED to. So NYAH NYAH NYAH!"
Boy, if I was in al Qaeda, I'd be convinced that I didn't win and that the US didn't just demonstrate (again) that it's a paper tiger just like Osama said the last time America bugged out of a war.
/sarcasm
Please spare me the "we don't want to surrender; we want to fight al Qaeda" BS, too. Let's assume that you Benedict Arnolds are successful and force some sort of "phased withdrawal" or whatever from Iraq, leaving behind some small forces to fight AQ. What if Mookie's boys (continue to) shoot at them? Can they shoot back? If they see men walking around with AK's and RPG's carrying a banner that says, "Death for Allah!", will our boys have to ask for their AQ identification cards before shooting at them? You quislings like screaming that Iraq is a failed state in the throes of a civil war yet you want to leave a token force of troops in the middle of it with explicit orders NOT to get involved??? How stupid are you?
That was a rhetorical question; I already know the answer.
I'd also like to compliment gregdn and markg8 on their accumen. Yep, Muslims in general and Arabs in particular NEVER thought about being terrorists before we went into Iraq. Those bastards on 9-11 were actually Jehovah's Witnesses (see what happens when you don't make them stay on the porch?). And OF COURSE AQ will be exterminated in Iraq the instant we leave! The only reason that the Iraqis haven't slaughtered AQ themselves up until now is because we're stopping them. QUICK! Go tell the intelligence community that they're wrong (again) about AQI: they are actually just a handful of deadenders stuck in a hostile land, shivering in fear lest furious Iraqis hunt them down and kill them.
/more sarcasm
Newsflash: AQ has never been some huge organization. But, as some of us learned on 9-11, you don't need a huge army to inflict serious death and damage. If AQ has "only" about 1500 members, then that's about 1500 too many. When they're dead, and the rest of the loonies around the world learn that waging war against the United States gets them nothing but a visit from the USMC and a quick trip to hell, we'll be safer and then we can all go back to arguing about abortion or socialized medicine or gay marriage.
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 17, 2007 2:10 PM
When they're dead, and the rest of the loonies around the world learn that waging war against the United States gets them nothing but a visit from the USMC and a quick trip to hell, we'll be safer and then we can all go back to arguing about abortion or socialized medicine or gay marriage.
The problem with this theory is that terrorism was born out of people feeling helpless in the face of the kind of overwealming military force you describe.
Everyone knows you can't fight US forces head on... and if you do, you'll die. These people don't care if they die. These people want to die.
The problem is, when you go around the world using overwealming military force to go after terrorists, you create more people who feel helpless in the face of US might, and more people who are willing to die in a fight against them (See Iraq/AQI).
Overwealming military force is not the answer to terrorism. You can't "kill em all."
Don't get me wrong. Military force is necessary when needed. But when misused (again, see Iraq) it can set you back in the war on terror.
Posted by ibfamous | July 17, 2007 2:55 PM
How is it that US intelligence agencies, in testimony to congress, listed AQI as the number five threat in Iraq (behind general criminal mischief), but according to this cherry picked excerpt from the IE it’s the number one threat to us here in America?
As far as what would AQ think of us leaving, who gives a damn. We already told them through our actions that we’d rather fight a broken country with a broken army than to go after them (AQ) after they attack us. If we were to take the fight to them properly, not a proxy war for the heart of the ME, then I’d have to say we could make them think whatever we want.
This war has now become nothing but Georgies perception of his place in heaven and he’s willing to sacrifice as many Americans as it take to secure it. God help us all.
Posted by jeff | July 17, 2007 5:07 PM
Well, actually AQI may be the greatest threat to Americans, but that assumes those Americans are walking the streets of Baghdad. For any other american, they should be far more concerned about remembering to buckle their seat belt than that a bad bearded man from AQI or AQ-central is going to hurt them. To say that the NIE somehow validates our past, present, or planned war strategy in any way is completely dishonest. I read it...it says we more or less screwed up and are screwed. The challenge now is to figure out how to stop making things worse.
Posted by gil | July 17, 2007 6:21 PM
Let's see.
The Republicans (Bush) start a war in Iraq that the entire world from terrorism experts, to Arab Heads of State, to 80+% of the world population, Presidents, Prime Misnisters, etc, etc. TOLD THEM NO TO START BECUASE OF THE CONSECUENCES.
Next thing you know all these people are proven absolutely correct, and the Republican Right absolutely and tragically wrong and what do you know? ......... The Republican Right still feels that they have the credibility to open their mouths and act like their ideas are the only ones that are correct!!!!!! Yes people don't let your jaw drop to the floor. Republicans are actually doing it again!!!!!!! YOU SEE THEY KNOW BETTER!!!! AGAIN!!!!
Republicans linear thinking precludes them from going any farther that the most obvious action and consecuence ideas.
Because of this linear thinking most Republicans can't understand if their lives was in the balance, that if we stay in Iraq we are giving al-Quaida the perfect recruitment tool, we are giving Iran a free pass to Iraq, we invite every nut in a region populated with a billion Arabs an opportunity to start a Jihad against our soldiers, and every one that support us, we are letting our Army become bogged down for many years to come, etc, etc, etc.
Ask a Republican the simple question..... "OK, when do we know that the Iraqi Government can stand for itself? What if they look like they can, but in fact can not? Are you willing to keep America there for 30 years in full battle, and constant combat????? And you'll never get a straigh answer becuase to say yes does not make sense and to say no flyes against what they want you to think of them.
A
You guys have a simple game. Keep the war going, until some one ends it for you and then blame that some one. Never mind that you never could win any "victories". That's all you are duing. Waithing for some adult to stop your little war, so you can blame him for the loss.
Real brave people this Republicans!!!
Posted by docjim505 | July 17, 2007 7:32 PM
More idiocy from the left. Allow me to summarize:
Shipley: The terrorists are fanatics who don't care if they die.
True to a large extent, though we seem to capture quite a few of their brave leaders wearing defective suicide belts because, gosh darn it! they just don't explode when the terrorist is surrounded by infidel US troops.
By the way: given the tiny number of American troops who have been taken alive in this war (and it is a TINY number), wouldn't it be just as accurate - even MORE accurate - to say that AMERICAN soldiers are fanatics who will fight to the death? Strange behavior from uneducated losers who only joined the military because they couldn't get a REAL job in the Worst Economy Since the Great Depression (TM), don't you think?
Shipley - Military force alone can't defeat the terrorists.
Which is why we're trying to build a democracy in Iraq rather than establish an American viceroy or just nuking the place. Which is why we also cooperate with other governments around the world to track down terrorist financial networks or establish mutual databases to help identify terrorists and terrorist cells. Which is why the DHS spends billions on airport screening and other types of domestic security. Which is why we had the Patriot Act.
Funny: libs hate most of those things. They also hate military force. It's almost like they hate everything that might stop the terrorists!
But I'm not questioning your patriotism.
ibfamous - Cherry-picked intelligence.
This from the same people who crow over every leaked bit of intel from CIA that PROVES that we're losing. They are, incidentally, the same people who criticize Bush for not listening to his generals, yet criticize those same generals when they say something that agrees with / supports Bush. Can you say "double standard"? I think you can...
And here's a tip, kids: intelligence isn't cut and dried like mathematics. You make the best assessment you can from multiple experts who themselves have imperfect / incomplete information. We have rather tangible proof (large hole in the ground in NYC) that al Qaeda is a threat to the United States. It seems wise to me to take that threat seriously and not ignore it because different intelligence agencies can't decide whether it's the #1 threat or the #5 threat.
ibfamous - We picked on poor widdle Saddam instead of fighting "the real enemy".
This would be news to the troops who are and have been fighting in A-stan. Or, for that matter, Africa. Or who have been assisting the Filipinos in their fight against AQ-affilitated terrorists. I think that the idea that Saddam wasn't a threat to us would be a surprise to Slick Willie and his odious crew, who spent eight years sparring with the Butcher of Baghdad. Joining them would be the UN, which had ol' Saddam under sanctions for over a decade and kept "threatening" him with hollow resolutions.
Oh, should we stop shooting at the Taliban, by the way? After all, they are poorly armed and never did anything to us, either.
ibfamous - Bush is some sort of Christian crusader.
Honestly, folks, you can't make this stuff up!
jeff - Why worry about suicide bombers or airplane hijackers or terrorists with WMD? You're in much more danger from drunk drivers.
Somebody go back and call off World War II! And World War I. Oh, cancel the Spanish-American War, the wars against the Indians, the Civil War, the Mexican War, the War of 1812, and (while we're at it) the War for Independence. I mean, Americans were in far more danger from being thrown by a horse or from the flu than they ever were from the nazis / Japs / Italians / Germans / Austro-Hungarians / Spanish / Cheyenne / Apache / yankees / Mexicans / Seminoles / British.
This may be hard for you to understand, jeff , as I'm sure you're an enlightened "citizen of the world", but the prime function of a government is to protect its people and territory from external threats like al Qaeda. I seem to recall a number of people (including me) being quite upset in September 2001 because the government failed in that task. I DON'T recall anybody telling the families of some 3000 people not to fret over their loved ones because they probably would have died in a car crash or of a disease, anyway.
Perhaps you can write a letter to the mayor of your city suggesting that the police be disbanded. After all, you are in much greater danger from slipping in your bathtub than from murder or other violent crime.
gil - EVERYBODY told us that this was a bad idea.
Yep. That's why Britain, Australia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Denmark, etc, etc, etc. went into Iraq with us. That's why well over half the Congress voted to authorize it. That's why the Hilldabeast and Silky Pony are trying desperately to explain why THEY voted for it. I seem to recall polls at the time showing overwhelming support among the American people, too. But what the hell: the opinion of frenchies, Russians, and Sudanese obviously trumps all that.
gil - It's all the fault of brain-damaged Republicans who can't see the truth that is so clear to everybody else.
Yeah, darn us nasty ol' Republicans! We thought that getting rid of Saddam in '91 was a good idea, we thought that getting rid of him in '98 was a good idea, we thought that getting rid of him in '02 was a good idea, and we STILL think that getting rid of him was a good idea (well, a few politicians have gone wobbly because it gets them on the Sunday morning talk shows). Say what you will: at least we're consistent.
I think it has to do with that little mess on 9-11 and realizing that, if terrorists armed with box cutters could wreak that much havoc, think of what they could do if somebody like Saddam gave them a nuke or a bag full of anthrax. Oh, I know, I know: Saddam would NEVER have done anything like that! He was a smart guy (except for that little thing in '90 when he invaded another country, then tried to burn the entire place when he saw we wouldn't let him keep it. Oh, and refusing to cooperate with the inspectors. Shooting at our aircraft. Trying to kill former President Bush. Bankrupting his country to pay for his palaces... But otherwise a smart guy. Really!).
O' course, the Pakistanis are smart, but one of their scientists, A.Q. Khan, decided to line his own pockets by selling nuclear know-how all around the world. Can you say for sure that some Iraqi scientist might not have done the same? Or that Saddam's successor(s) might not have been so smart or self-restrained? As libs never tire of pointing out, Iraq is a majority Shiite country. Some of those Shiites would like nothing better than the establish a Muslim theocracy a la Iran. Anybody REALLY want such a country to have nukes or bio?
See, this is REAL linear thinking: that the world will ALWAYS be EXACTLY as it is right now. Saddam isn't using poison gas right this instant, so he never will. Saddam didn't have nukes when we invaded, so he never would. Iraq's a mess right now, so it always will be.
If you want to leave the security of our country to wishful thinking, knock yourself out. The rest of us adults would rather try to stop threats before the materialize. You know: like Bush was supposed to KNOW from that old NIE that nineteen terrorists would hijack four airplanes on the morning of 9-11-01 and crash them into buildings?
I'm surprised that one of you didn't mention (scream) Halliburton. You're slipping!
BTW, which is it:
al Qaeda isn't a real threat; Bush just uses it as an excuse for political gain, or;
AQ is a serious threat and Bush is stupid and isn't doing the right things about it?
Oh, wait! You're LIBERALS! You are the very people Orwell had in mind when he coined the term "doublethink"! Therefore, AQ can be a threat and NOT a threat at the same time. But the constant remains: It's All Bush's Fault (TM). Oh, and Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted by gil | July 17, 2007 9:24 PM
docjim505.
About who the idiot is here.
Let me point out to you that as one of many examples I can give you, that indeed Tony Blair was supporting Bush, but as you know almost NO ONE IN ENGLAND WAS SUPPORTING HIM, OR BUSH . And that by the way includes the majority of Blair's Party. And no Sir, It was not the Russians only opposing Bush. It was the entire Arab leage of nations, most European nations, most of LAtin America and Asia, and it was about 80% or the world's population. Is nice to get selective Amnesia, but in your case is more like a bad case of BS.
The same applies for the rest of your sorry excuse of a "coalition" ...... A "coalition" where we supply 90% of the troops and 96% of the money. Are you taking me for a fool, in fact are you one???? Hey we have a coalition right now of 70% of the American people that is telling you and your pals in no uncertain terms to go to hell with your looser policy and what? It's real, but do you buy it?
So why are you asking us to make pretend that your "coalition" was worth the paper it was signed on????
Any one willing to support your surge for example, or gives money to support our extended stay, or diplomatic cover. or anything at all????? So where is your coalition now???
Now for your other comments.
1) The American people supported the war in Iraq because they believed Bush's WMD bull shit and because September 11th was very fresh in their memory. Today the fact is that no one other than the Right believes in Bush any more. The fact is that the Republicans already lost all the power in Congress after the 2006 elections and referendum on Iraq. Power I may add that you Republicans were supposed to keep (according to Rove) permanently.
2) I hate to brake this to you because I know there is no News Papers, or electricity where you live, but Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. OH, and you know what else? the guy that did it, is sitting in Pakistan wandering when will we wise up and go after him.
3) The U.N. had inspectors on the grownd when when Bush pull them out to start his invasion. Problem was that the inspectors were not finding any WMD's and you guys were getting furios with them. Do you ever read or inform yourself before posting?
4) If you have problems with an Pakistani scientist sealing Nuclear secrets to terrorist why then not go and attack Pakistan? You are actualy saying that Iraq should have been attacked because a Pakistani scientist sold some Nuclear secrets, to some one? What ???? What kind of BS "logic" is that??
Or are you saying that because some one in Pakistan did it now we are supposed to invade North Korea, Iran, Libia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, etc, etc. They all have such potential scientists, and don't like us you know. So when do we start invading them Mr." Bright man"?
5) Funny you mention Iran. Iran is indeed the big winner of your invasion. Or have you not noticed. They are building A REAL NUCLEAR BOMB RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR NOSES BARAVE GUY. And what are you in the Right doing about it?????? Why don't you demand that Bush follows his own BS standards (and yours) in Iraq, and this time goes after real WMD's out there treatening us ???
Why? Because he can't any more, because he used up all our credibility, and all our power in Iraq. That's why . So yes, the Libs were the ones that warned you, and you like fools ignore them. And now we have the Iraq problem, and the Iran problem to boot thanks to you.
Hey linear thinking guy. Iraq is a mess right now. Into the future I don't know any more than you do. So when you say "brilliant" things like " I some how think that the world will be exactly as it is right now" to try and put me down, and justify Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq I laugh and think;
"No man, if I see you in the streets I'll punch in the face because I never now if tomorrow you might punch me.... That makes perfect sense!!!!" .......... In the Twilight Zone. Or at County Jail.
I do know one thing tough. Your croud started this war, botched every aspect of the ocupation, did not find WMD's, created a bunch of terrorism after the power vacum left by the Batist, have our Army bogged down into the infinite, gave Iran the keys to Iraq, and the region, allowed Iran to make Nuclear bombs with impunity, the ocupation is creating more terrorism than ever, the "Democracy" in Iraq is a joke, and so on.
So I don't know about my linear thinking", but I do know that with that sorry ass record, the last people that should be giving advice is you people. Maibe that's why no one is taking advice from you.
Posted by Aine | July 17, 2007 11:41 PM
I have a genuine question: Capn Ed, your post says that the report cited AQI as the number 1 threat, but I read that it was AQ Pakistan that was the threat to the US- not that AQI wouldn't be quite happy to blow us up, just that their hands are full with civil war at home, and they don't have the resources to be a real threat, while AQ Pakistan has increased it's resources and ability to strike.
The tone of a lot of the posts is getting pretty snarky: please don't bite my head off- I just want to know what was actually in the report. Thanks.
Posted by docjim505 | July 18, 2007 4:12 AM
gil,
Go back to grammar school. Even if you don't learn anything more about logical thinking, perhaps you can brush up on other things like spelling and punctuation.
As for Iran, I'm personally in favor of the LeMay approach to dealing with them. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you libs also want to take stern action??? Or is this just another case of, "No matter WHAT happens, blame Bush"?
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 18, 2007 6:49 AM
Shipley: The terrorists are fanatics who don't care if they die.
True to a large extent, though we seem to capture quite a few of their brave leaders wearing defective suicide belts because, gosh darn it! they just don't explode when the terrorist is surrounded by infidel US troops.
Ok, so, they try to kill themselves, but their belts are defective. What's your point?
By the way: given the tiny number of American troops who have been taken alive in this war (and it is a TINY number), wouldn't it be just as accurate - even MORE accurate - to say that AMERICAN soldiers are fanatics who will fight to the death?
Um, no. Enemy troops are usually taken after a battle is won. The US doesn't lose many battles to AQ (if any). The lack of US troops captured by AQ doesn't say anything about the US troops wanting to die for their cause.
I don't think many if any US troops want to die for our cause. They may be willing to die, but they don't want to die.
Shipley - Military force alone can't defeat the terrorists.
This is true, but my point was more that misused military force will hurt our cause in the GWOT (for lack of a better term).
Funny: libs hate most of those things. They also hate military force. It's almost like they hate everything that might stop the terrorists!
I was going to say I really don't see any of the idiocy you refered to, then I got to this paragraph.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 7:38 AM
RE: Tom Shipley (July 18, 2007 6:49 AM)
"Ok, so, they try to kill themselves, but their belts are defective. What's your point?"
You're not being obtuse here, are you?
The point is that those in leadership have no desire to kill themselves. I figure all of middle management wants to live, too. So, it's the brainwashed, lowest echelon that gets to sacrifice for Allah while the enlightened get to enjoy their Earthly thrones... laughing. See Bin Laden and Al-Sadr.
Why is this important since there's such a concern for elevated recruiting of the very types destined to be fodder due to our presence and its supposed motivator for jihad? Consider the proclamations of those who determine (by some self-defined metric) that the actual number of dangerous Al Qaeda types is miniscule and, by virtue of that small number, do not really pose a threat to us directly. This belies the argument that leaving them alone would be, long-term, the wisest course of action. Given time, they will expand their army under the relief provided by our absence. To deny that inevitability is foolish.
Conversely, it strengthens the argument that we must persist in hunting down these relatively small loci of Al Qaeda types since their removal would a) kill the precursors of the tumor that are metastasizing, and b) humiliate them as the hypocrites they are for embracing martyrdom except when it is their own. Discrediting their message is part of the bigger war. Killing that message will end it. Part of that process requires that we also finish all battles on our terms, not theirs, to reestablish the perception of American determination and to send a new message for a new generation.
Posted by docjim505 | July 18, 2007 11:19 AM
AD,
Trust me: he's being obtuse.
Posted by Tom Shipley | July 18, 2007 11:52 AM
AD,
I actually did miss the word "leaders" when I replied. So, to the point that their leaders won't die for their cause, only recruit others to do so...
Well, yeah. They do brainwash the lower eschelan to sacrafice themselves. And their job is that much easier because of wars like Iraq. Our own intelligence shows Iraq has been a huge recruitment tool... and it spawned a new dangerous strain of AQ... AQI.
As to your argument that there's only a small amount that are dangerous to us... well, I don't agree. (and I'm not really sure if you're making this argument or not. It's not very clear) Those guys who recently tried the london attacks? They were recruits trained in Iraq. They didn't succeed, but they very well could have. Recent news reports suggest these lower grunts have been sent out on missions to attack the West. Those guys are dangerous to us.
If we withdraw troops, we will not be leaving AQI. We will leave troops there to battle them.
it strengthens the argument that we must persist in hunting down these relatively small loci of Al Qaeda types since their removal would a) kill the precursors of the tumor that are metastasizing, and b) humiliate them as the hypocrites they are for embracing martyrdom except when it is their own. Discrediting their message is part of the bigger war.
Yeah, these guys are in Pakistan. Why aren't we going after them? We gave up on the hunt for these guys and invaded Iraq, creating a new strain of al-qaeda. Meanwhile, AQ in Pakistan is plotting and training freely.
I agree we have to go after the leadership, but we haven't been.
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 2:40 PM
docjim505
The blog is not about Grammar.
But thank's for the suggestion. Send me your Resume and maibe I'll hire you as my Secretary.
Minimum wage of course, and no Insurance of course. Just the way Republicans like it.
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 3:04 PM
Anonimus Drive.
"We finish the battle on our terms"
Are you not forgetting something Sir? The Iraqi Government that we help to put in place to create the "Democracy" is painted in the wall in your view?
The Iraqi people don't have a say when, and if we live or stay by any chance???
Our terms Sir?
The fact is that in a civil war, or mess take you pick, it will be hardly our terms that will dictate anything. The fact is that Sunni and Shiite can fight each other for decades to come, and we will never have enough troops on the grownd to really affect the fighting, or stop it for more than a few months. The fact is that Iran will love to see our Army bogged down in Iraq forever. The fact is that al-Quaida can have a never ending supply of terrorist from the Region that can put a never ending supply of bombs, and other forms of mass murder.
We can't control that with 150,000 troops Sir, and therefore we can't finish the battle on our terms. The only factor we control is when and if we get out of Iraq. The only way that we can finish the battle on our terms, is if we declare victory and re- deploy our troops, and change theire current mission from policing a civil war into attacking al-Quaida when necessary.
We indeed need to send a message of America's determination, but we also need to send the message that we are smart in our policies.
Bush's current policies have kept us bogged down for years, has given al-Quaida a perfect tool for never ending recruitment, has empowered Iran, has put our Army rotation near collapse, has drained our Treasury, has destroyed our credibility, and prestige around the world, and on, and on.
That is a fact. That's what Republicans keep on defending incredibly enough.
Posted by NoDonkey | July 18, 2007 4:01 PM
Well gil, nice that you can regurgitate Daily Kos drivel, but you're wrong on every point.
Bogged down? We've killed 50,000 plus terrorists. Not one of them will ever reach our soil.
Plus, we've got 150,000 troops and three aircraft battle groups right on Iran's doorstep - the same Iran who has been waging a 30+ year war against us.
Army rotation near collapse? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to military matters, so just keep quiet. Our Army is fine and positioned exactly where they need to be.
Drained our Treasury? This necessary war is a drop in the bucket compared to the absolutely worthless social programs and "education" system the Democrat Party has saddled us with.
Drained our credibility around the world? With whom exactly, the vultures who were profiting from Saddam's "oil for bribes"?
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 4:47 PM
nodonkey.
Your comments are so outlandish that at first I tought you were joking, then I feelt tempted to not even bother answering your "ideas". But I can't let this oportunity go.
We have been in Iraq for almost five years, but according to you, we are not bogged down because we killed terrorists, and have carriers in the area. and are at Iran border!!!! Do you understand what bogged down is ???? Bogged down as in stuck. We are not stuck because we kill people, or because we have Carriers, or because we are at Iran's borders? OH man, you most be Napoleon's first cousin!!!
We are sending troops in their third and fourth deployement, and by April '08 THE MILITARY, NOT ME is saying we will have to start looking at other alternatives for troops in Iraq, but I don't know what I am talking about. In fact pal, you need to understand what you post before you look like some delusional escapee from a sanatorium.... It will also help some if you were not against education.
We killed 50,000 terrorists!!! are Shiite and Sunni "terrorists" now? or you don't know how to count?
We should be spending money in the mess Iraq is rather than in Education for our kids, and other "worthless" programs like Social Security, etc, etc. No education for you makes a lot of sence you sound like you are against everithing that has to do with checking facts, or researching what you talk about, so I guess education is not somethig you have much use for.
Bush lost our credibility around the world with our allies, with our enemies, and with the American people. The consecuence of that loss, is that for example in Bush's latest "surge" he does not even bother to call on one single country on this earth to help. Why ???? Because no one will buy his Bull Shit any more. Not even Blair.
The loss of credibility translated into complete isolation from the rest of the world by this Administration, when it comes to Iraq. England is for the most part about to get out, and so is evey one else of our "coalition" that's what happens to loosers like Bush and his followers. They become orphans.
Posted by ibfamous | July 18, 2007 5:04 PM
came back to the post today and was suprised to see my name being used with false quotes - was a bit upset until i saw that it was docjim, and since no one pays any attention to his ignorant ramblings i guess i won't make a fuss about someone putting words in my mouth. "intellegence isn't mathmatics," now that's a good one.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 5:50 PM
RE: Tom Shipley (July 18, 2007 11:52 AM)
Our own intelligence shows Iraq has been a huge recruitment tool... and it spawned a new dangerous strain of AQ... AQI.
Iraq is currently the hottest theater for the nexxus of terrorism, no doubt. It's hot because coalition (read mainly American) forces are standing up to the regional power brokers who are trying to fill the leadership void, and the anti-governmental thugs/assassins hungry for their own power cannot afford to have such a powerful antagonist in their midst. It's vital, acutely so, to their cause to drive Americans out since anything else is militarily inferior. Should Americans leave, much of the country will be a cakewalk considering the inflow of outside agitators and extra-governmental finance/leadership. Chaos is their method and it's easy to create. However, AQ, AQI, AQx, or whatever are just collections of extremists capitalizing on opportunism.
Locals looking to fall in line behind a strong horse will, naturally, ally themselves with the perceived strongest just for the sake of survivability. It's understandable that many have moderated between conflicted sides because they remain unsure of American commitment to the cause. They assuredly know the extremists' commitment, so it's with a pretty heavy faith that those siding with us, truly siding with us, risk everything. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place with hopelessness one chaotic explosion away.
Now, is the recruitment really one of ideology? Maybe. Or maybe not. Coincidentally, and fortunately, there's evidence that along with the recruitment against us, there's a growing recruitment of locals for us. Everyone (well, not everyone... just certain quarters) wants to ignore that, but it is happening. Not at the pace we'd like, but in view of the rate at which our own government operates in a much more hospitable context, I'm not going to lose a tonsil screaming at them about their delays.
Furthermore, it's tragic that Iraq is the battlefield, but a battlefield there will be. Logistically, Iraq isn't a bad place for the global "jihad"; it certainly beats the mountainous and inhospitable ***istan borders. If Iraq remains the flytrap, then our superior logistical capabilities will wear down the insurgency just as we help build up the locals who experience our resolve. Really, that's why it is absolutely vital that we stay. The longterm repercussions are profound and their lifespan will exceed our own generation's. Is it expensive? Absolutely. But not prohibitively so considering the stakes.
As to your argument that there's only a small amount that are dangerous to us... well, I don't agree. (and I'm not really sure if you're making this argument or not. It's not very clear)...
I was presenting a rebuttal to the argument posed by some that leaving a small contingency of Al Qaeda alone would be wise since they don't really pose a threat, that locals will see to it that they are destroyed. Our exit for such naivete, while expedient, would be foolish. No, I have no idea how many extremists, whatever they title themselves, exist. What I do know that is that any number greater than zero is dangerous and that destroying their very essence is the war we need to wage. If the game of Whack-A-Mole can be restricted to one geographical arena, then that's an efficient strategy. Our presence there just draws them in but does not necessarily induce the production of more jihadists. They'll already exist but in a more dispersed form. Clearly exiting from where they are congregating would be militarily idiotic.
If we withdraw troops, we will not be leaving AQI. We will leave troops there to battle them.
What? We withdraw troops, then battle AQI with troops? This makes no sense unless you are saying that a contingency force, a lightweight alternative, will wage a pointed war at AQI alone. At some point, that may be viable. Right now it isn't. This small footprint with very tight ROE is the very strategy that turns our military personnel into fodder. It cannot keep pace chasing clans that appear and disappear into the populace with asymmetric war strategy. Soldiers at this point need to coordinate at all levels with a weak government, to be dialed in to local sentiments, and to retain an infrastructure that stabilizes both the locals and the security forces. This is the Petraeus model. The downside is that for now, it requires a bigger footprint. The upside is that that footprint can step more lightly amongst a broader population that starves for stability.
Yeah, these guys are in Pakistan. Why aren't we going after them? We gave up on the hunt for these guys and invaded Iraq, creating a new strain of al-qaeda. Meanwhile, AQ in Pakistan is plotting and training freely.
You are the only liberal I recall on this blog advocating the violation of a sovereign nation's rights for our hegemony. Well done. ;) Seriously though, I'm all for getting Al Qaeda XYZ, but dealing with the Pakistan component is terribly dicey, probably more than even Iraq was. The worm is turning in Pakistan as Al Qaeda seems to be wearing out its welcome to some degree. Musharraf has a nearly impossible task keeping the secular and religious factions under control. What is happening, however, is that the northern tribal havens may soon become a war zone with American "advisors" getting leadership. Don't think that this administration has not been wanting to be more proactive there, but it has tried to respect Pakistani autonomy. I'd say the President has done a marvelous job of massaging that front under impossible circumstances... short of nuking the region. You aren't suggesting that if it comes to it, are you?
I agree we have to go after the leadership, but we haven't been.
That's just not true. The military is going after many leaders. The exception, and a glaring one to me, that proves the rule is Al-Sadr. Now his still Earthly existence sticks in my craw. That one is a political failing and not a military one.
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 6:45 PM
anonimusdrivel.
"It is imperative that we stay", you say. For how long? Do you understand what you are saying?
The Israelies have been fighting Islamic terrorists, and Islamic States for 50+ years with no end in sight. And they live there!!!!!
You want us to stay there forever? So far we are close to one Trillion Dollars in expenditures, not to mention thousands of wounded, dead, and our troops in their third and fourth deployment.
We Sir don't have the money to maintain this Policy, we don't have the man power, the American people does not have the patience required to fight the enemy in Iraq for the next 50 years, and for you to simply make the point that we need to stay ignores the obvious. Al Quaida can hide in Iraq, can hide in Iran, can hide in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or anywhere to avoid our "surges" ..... And can hide for years if necessary.. That's why defeating terrorism can't be done militarly.
The enemy will like nothing better than for us to do just that. Stay. Is their turf. They have an inexaustable supply of Jihadist at the ready , and an inexaustable supply of arms, and money to make our life in Iraq a living hell as it now is.
If we staty what do we accomplish? DO you actually believe that we can kill every terrorists in a region that has hundreds of millions of people that hate us? If we stay do you think that the Iraqi Government will ever come to make compromises??? It flies against all logic.
We can't stay with our present Policy, if any one can call this present nonsence a Policy.
We need to re-deploy our troops to Kurdistan and keep them there at the ready to attack al-Quaida, or stop any Iranian influence in Iraq. I I agree with you that we can't walk away from Iraq, but we need to prepare for the long run, and we will run out of gas very fast with Bush's policy. Hell as it is the guy's on fumes already. The new policy has to adress the fact that we can be in the Region for decades. That stay can't be at our present troop levels, or expenditures.
Why Bush can't see that is simply because the man is an Idiot.
We need to be realists in this. Sound bites are for politicians, but they don resolve a darn thing.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 8:04 PM
RE: gil (July 18, 2007 6:45 PM)
"It is imperative that we stay", you say. For how long? Do you understand what you are saying?...
To the former, longer than September of 2008. Some months of escalated vigor to be followed by scaling back/up as needed to keep Al Qaeda on its heels and looking over its back. To the latter, "yes."
You want us to stay there forever?... [and expenditures, wounded, dead, deployments, manpower, patience...]
Define "forever." I'll remind you that we remain in Japan and Germany. I say let's redeploy resources from those countries first, if needed.
...and for you to simply make the point that we need to stay ignores the obvious. Al Quaida can hide in Iraq, can hide in Iran, can hide in Saudi Arabia or Jordan or anywhere to avoid our "surges" ..... And can hide for years if necessary.. That's why defeating terrorism can't be done militarly.
First, the "surge" is not a mirage. It is real. Before we can worry about everywhere else Al Qaeda is hiding, we can certainly focus on the ones hiding in Iraq and increasingly getting exposed due to persistent diligence. Since they proclaim to want jihad then it makes sense to set up shop and attrit them under the more established battlefield where intelligence has been accumulating and some trust has been gained. Expedient abandonment would abolish any and all good faith with the locals and a vital kernel of intelligence sources. Defeating this enemy requires military first to keep them destabilized. The political components can follow simultaneously, if not just a bit delayed, once a real alternative has been proven to work. Iraqi's are increasingly receptive to us and antagonistic to Al Qaeda, and converting the political mindset of a populace stunted but tyranny is no easy task. Some patience, even if it strains us, seems entirely rational and worthwhile even if appears on the surface that all is going to hell. It isn't. Progress is slow and requires methodical, if inexact, advances. Promoting our determination in a hostile environment is absolutely required and is more than some empty rhetoric for political gamesmanship. It's vital policy just as the understanding post WWII that there would be no sacrifice too great to defend our nation. It just so happens that in our own defense, Iraq gets to come along for the ride. In time we'll take the training wheels off and they'll find their balance. Even if it takes "forever."
The enemy will like nothing better than for us to do just that. Stay. Is their turf. They have an inexaustable supply of Jihadist at the ready , and an inexaustable supply of arms, and money to make our life in Iraq a living hell as it now is.
I'll take my chances that we are more "inexhaustible" than the jihadists. I know our military is. I just hope our politicians are in spite of the wide net of functional quislings in the Democrat membership.
If we staty what do we accomplish? DO you actually believe that we can kill every terrorists in a region that has hundreds of millions of people that hate us? If we stay do you think that the Iraqi Government will ever come to make compromises??? It flies against all logic.
I think we can kill enough of the terrorists to make them reconsider their enemy's ability and resolve. We'll need to kill however many it takes to make them realize they've lost their war against us. This war will take decades. The battle in Iraq, though it's not one in a classical sense, will not. And yes, the Iraqi government will make compromises, compromises made easier if outside agitators are captured/killed upon arrival. It will take coordination between Iraqi police, the Iraqi army, and US forces to greet them. The ratio will fluctuate on an as-needed basis, and a stable Iraq will welcome such a partnership even though they "hate" us and wish us to leave.
We need to re-deploy our troops to Kurdistan and keep them there at the ready to attack al-Quaida, or stop any Iranian influence in Iraq...
Forces in Kurdistan seem a natural marriage and I endorse it; however, that contradicts the position that we should not be there since our very presence is what drives Al Qaeda to action. Why would Al Qaeda not find that motivation, one of any it/they knit(s) out of whole cloth, to fulfill their own agenda against the "infidel"? How is an infidel base in Iraq to conduct operations against terrorists going to pacify such persons who need that as a recruiting tool? That's incoherent.
These aren't sound bites per se. It is the highest level of policy WRT reshaping the Middle East into a region that is more stable and less oppressive and that may, at some point, avoid the potentially necessary use of the most serious arms.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 8:23 PM
Oops! Longer than September 2007 though 2008 might not actually be incorrect.
To help fund the extended stay and its questionably acute burden to government obligations, we could charge a huge tax on haircuts over $400.00. Some politicians would welcome such adjustments to the tax code, wouldn't they?
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 9:12 PM
anonymousdrivel.
Let me better explain my position.
The ocupation has obviously turned into a war of attrition. Our enemies see it that way. Bush does not because his is a dumb excuse of a "Leader" that continues to make mistake after mistake.
In reality our troop level, our expenditure level, our political noice, etc. is built to be sustained only for a short period of time. I define a short period of time as one year at most. It defies all logic that we can continue to spend at the rate we are spending, and exhaust our troops the way we are doing it if the mission demands that we destroy al-Quaida, and support the Iraqi Government until they can make compromises, and Iraq is some how pacified.
It should be perfectly clear to even the dumbest among us that the stated "goals" presented by the Bush Administration I just mentioned, DO NOT CORRESPOND TO THE MISSION GIVEN TO OUR TROOPS.
If one understand that we can very well be called to stay in the region for decades, then why is the Military mission to go all out at a high burn rate kicking down doors, hunting for Shiite Militias, Sunni Insurgents, and al-Quaida operatives like if there was no tomorrow. You make several good points, however are a bit naive, if I might say so when it comes to what you see as "Iraqi's are increasingly receptive to us and antagonistic to al-Quaida". First of all is not "Iraqi's as you say, is Sunni. The Shiite are up in arms about us giving Sunni arms and help. Second of all the Sunni, in the several regions where this happening only "like" us for the moment. Make no mistake, they want to kill us the first chance they get. It's only they want to kill al-Quaida even more right now.
Now back to my point about the lack of a realistic Policy. Are Generals that dumb not to tell Bush " Excuse me Sir, but all the bad guys have to do to defeat any "surge" is to re-deploy, hide, and avoid confrontation as much as possible, for as long as necessary. While at the same time attack civilians, and military targets where our surge can't reach.
You might present "progress" with your surge Sir, but that progress with be as hollow as your rethoric. Any progress Sir can't last because you gave the mission to win a marathon to a sprinter.
If one is serious about staying in Iraq for decades. And that's what it will take to salvage some of Bush's mess. Then we most understand that THE MISSION HAS CHANGED. It is now a war of attrition, and it dicttates tactics that deal with this kind of warfare.
Presition strikes, increase use of intelligence, increase use of special forces, surgical air strikes, re-deployment and reduction of troop levels, increase use of International cooperation, multi National commitments to attack terrorists wherever they can be , etc. etc.
In the end wars are about man and money. In Iraq the Math does not add up.
Another thing.
The Right is given to call Democrats cut and run because they want to get out or re-deploy troops in Iraq.
Let me remind them of Israel. They attacked Hezbollah in 2006. Big mistake. Just like Bush Israel at first assumed that they could use their supperior military to destroy a terrorist organization. Know they know better.
But unlike Bush, and the Republicans THEY DID NOT HAVE A DARN PROBLEM IN "CUTTING AND RUNNING" .,When they realised that the invasion was a mistake, they suspended the operation and sent the troops back into Israel. THEY DID NOT COMPUND THE INITIAL MISTAKE BY GRANDSTANDING AND PRETENDING. They realised that their power had limits, and like adults made the correction and cut their losses.
Now if there is one thing you can't call the Israeli people is "cut and run" types correct? So why if the Israeli can do it, America can't because if we do "we cut and run"?
Posted by gil | July 18, 2007 9:24 PM
anonymusdrivel
I decided to separate my answer not to make my post extremely long.
You seem to believe that our show of resolve will some how deter terrorism. It does not.
You are dealing with fanatics. Nothing stops a fanatic but dead. We can't impress them with our resolve, because unless we become as fanatic as they are, we will never be able to match their level of "resolve". Unless you consider that we can start strapping ourselves with bombs and go kill Arabs by the hundreds. That might imprese them for a moment as very resolute, but otherwise, no Sir. we can't match the resolve of a fanatic, nore do we want to.
Reality tells you that if you want to put American forces permanently in the Middle East.... And with Bush's hystoric mistake now we don't have a choice. Then we most understand that iin the eyes of the Arabs we have become the new Israel in the Region.
Our troops and every one assocciated with America will be attacked again, and again, and again for decades to come.
That's Bush's true legacy.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 18, 2007 10:04 PM
I'll keep my response selectively brief:
You seem to believe that our show of resolve will some how deter terrorism. It does not.
Yes, "show[s] of resolve" meted out with extreme violence in an overwhelming manner as required serve as a fine deterrent. Bin Laden himself counts implicitly and explicitly on paper tigers. When he (if he's not dead) and his peers discover this tiger has real mettle, their math will adjust. To carry this historical analogy a bit further, Bin Laden has/had been reading the script created by the consequential peacenik protests of Viet Nam and had his trial run in Somalia to reinforce that paradigm. Neocons, Republicans, and defense hawks are trying to rewrite the script and not recreate the insanity of repeating history. There are probably a few Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Kurds observing from afar (if you believe in such things) and hoping we don't provide a rerun. That's an audience we shouldn't disappoint even if we are also self-serving in our act. Proving religious zealots right is not a wise philosophical strategy if it is mind control that drives activity and one's goal is, in addition to physical warfare to win war, the checking and flipping of hearts and minds.