Captain's Quarters -

Stalin wanted the US to get out of Berlin. Yet HST said no. Now the Dems want to get out of Iraq? Have I missed something? What is the difference?

I always thought Lindsey was a cool head. You chickenhawks are fickle, though. A couple months ago you were calling him a cut and run faggyboy. At least he doesn't hang around airport restrooms or snort coke with and fondle Congressional pages.

You should listen to Lindsey. You wouldn't spend so much time with your foot in your mouth and egg on your face.

I didn't call him any of those names, Reddog, and in fact I criticized Graham for his name-calling. And in the grown-up world, we recognize that someone can be right on one issue and wrong on another.

Graham's statement about Iraq, "The August recess allowed National Assembly members to go home and face their constituents -- who gave them an earful about their lack of progress on reforms.", makes me wish our elected members of Congress would listen to their constituents while they are also on August recess.

What a concept! Listen to the people who hired you. Social Security, Border Security, etc. Not a problem! The people just don't understand how hard it is to get anything done in Washington!

We, the citizenry, need to hire new Washington representatives, who WILL get things done.

reddog in the morning is a shepherd's warning?

Reddog's controversial comment does have a point that makes some sense of reality. While Lindsey Graham may have had reservations about the conduct of the operations in Iraq, he has honestly re-assessed the situation and now sees that real progress has developed and there is hope for this young democratic nation.

Ask a democrat that is so invested in the failure of this war (for pure political advancement) if they would consider a more positive outcome or a re-assessment-----and-----they will tell you to go pound sand.

To change the mind of a democrat on this issue requires that they have one larger than the lemmings headed for the cliff.

First of all, kudos to Senator Graham. A politician that actually serves in the military is a rare thing these days. I thank him for his service.

But once again I see people using Anbar's struggle with Al-Qaida as proof that Iraq is getting better.

"He points to Anbar, as do most of the war's supporters. In 2006, Anbar only produced 1,000 recruits for the local police forces. Already this year, over 12,000 have volunteered for duty in Anbar, showing that the locals and the tribes are committed to securing Iraq."

Let's get it straight - the locals and tribes are committed to securing Anbar, not Iraq. This is evidence of the partitioning of Iraq, not its improvement. The Sunnis in Anbar are happy to take American guns and money to wipe out the small Al-Qaida faction in their midst. They will then use these same weapons on the Americans and the Shiites.

"Graham still remains critical of Nouri al-Maliki's leadership, but argues that he's become almost irrelevant to the reforms."

The prime minister of the country has become almost irrelevant? This is supposed to reassure me that political progress is being made?

Yes, Iraq will eventually get better, if only because it can't get much worse. Eventually the racial partitioning will be complete. The sectarian killings will cease because they will run out of people to kill. All the refugees will eventually find someplace new to settle. And during all this the American forces will huddle in their fortified bases, unable to stop it because they have been short-changed from the start by the Bush administration.

Bill K. You know not from what you speak. The coalition forces do not now, nor will they in the future, huddle in their fortified bases. We are out there, each and every day working the streets. You speak from the viewpoint of the news media, not from reality. Bad stuff happens there daily, yes. But it is a large country and contrary to popular leftist belief, bad stuff does NOT happen everywhere ALL the time. On the local level (particularly in Baghdad – at least up to when I left there last December) life goes on. The markets are full (which does tend to make a lucrative target for the insurgency), people are going about doing the best they can. Your allusion to a segregated society is the stuff of fiction. Does it happen there at all? Sure, but not even close to the levels you suggest. The troop surge is working. Maybe not at the “RIGHT NOW” rate expected in all things by the left, but it is remarkable. Playing into the hands of our enemy’s propaganda doesn’t help anyone but them. What is required is at least a smidgeon of courage and fortitude. However, if history is any indicator, I’m not holding out much hope of the left mustering much of either.

Contra Bill K, I doubt the Sunnis in Anbar have any interest in a separate Anbar. The oil isn't there, and they want a piece of the oil revenues.

Furthermore, General Petraeus's 'clear and hold' strategy is reportedly working in other areas of Iraq as well.

There are indeed serious questions whether the Shi'ites in the Maliki government can rise above their historical grievances against the Ba'athist Sunnis and create a workable national entity. I would have favored a US military governor for the first five years of post-Saddam Iraq, followed by the gradual introduction of democracy. But the Bush administration attempted to jump-start a parliamentary government instead, with chaotic results. The big question now is whether the Democrats in Congress are going to give us enough time (another five years?) to do the job right.

Senator Graham, along with Senator McCain, has been a stalwart and articulate supporter of the Iraq occupation and our efforts there, and we should be grateful for that. Captain Ed is right: you can agree on some things and disagree on others (namely the Graham-McCain-Kennedy position on illegal immigration).

/Mr Lynn

PS Ed, is there some reason why the first paragraph of every quotation is in a smaller font than the rest of the quote?

I have been very critical of Graham in recent weeks, especially as regards to his stand on the amnesty bill. He also seems to be one of the MSM's "go to guys" when they need a Republican to gripe about Bush.

But I've got to give him props for doing his duty. It would have been a simple thing for his to arrange to do his reserve duty in So. Carolina (or Hawaii, for that matter), but he went to Iraq. Good for him.

From Martin Gilbert, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL IV, Companion Volume Part 3, London: Heinemann, 1977, pp. 1973-74.

Winston S. Churchill writes to David Lloyd George

1 September 1922

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant anxiety to me.

I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaper - Tory, Liberal or Labour - which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed here - Labour, Die-hard or Wee Free - would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources.

I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study. It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they

Page 2

do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say 'I told you so' at the first misfortune.

Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having."

Rovin, there are at least two democrats who have recognized the positive results of the surge and have shifted position. One is Rep. Brian Baird of Washington State and the other is a Florida democrat Rep whose name escapes me at the moment. Baird authored a very eloquent piece on why we need to finish the job. I'm sure Pelosi and Murtha and their thugs, er Whips, are working them over for their gall to undermine Madame Nancy and the Kos-sacks. Cindy Sheehan is busy, but maybe Code Pink or Answer will find someone to run against these dastardly Representatives who dare to speak their minds.

Petraeus may not have been the first in the American military to realize it, but he's one of the early ones to realize that the loyalties that count in Iraq, that move the ball, are the tribal and clan loyalties. Iraqi politicians are seen as some hired bureaucrats who move paper across their desk. A necessary evil, but not the real leadership. So to move the ball, you have to be on the street where the tribal leaders are.

And it's possible that ONLY the experience of getting blown up for three years could've brought these tribal leaders around to appreciating the Americans. It seems, nothing comes cheap (or logically) in Iraq.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/28/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

What I don't understand, is why anyone would believe that we are capable of achieving success with the force levels we have in Iraq.

I think that Petraeus is a good leader; I have no doubt that he's trying as hard as he can to make things happen. He did write 'the book' on how the US is supposed to win battles like this.

Unfortunately, that same book calls for 5-10 times the amount of troops and a decade-long commitment. Neither of those are a realistic possibility for the US at this time. So where does the confidence in success arise from? It's like trying to fix a BMW with a screwdriver and a $20 bill; you could get creative, but without the proper tools and funding you will not achieve success.

It's hard not to respect Graham, and hard not to believe that his position comes from genuine conviction, unlike so many (on either side, really).

In any case I'm with him, as are most I know who've spent time over there.

Cycloptichorn wrote: "Unfortunately, that same book calls for 5-10 times the amount of troops and a decade-long commitment. Neither of those are a realistic possibility for the US at this time."

Of course the plan was, Iraqi troops and police would be ready to step in by now. But their moral and discipline was damaged greatly by the sectarian violence too. Everything there just takes a generation or two generations to accomplish, I guess.

Seems to me, the only thing Linday Graham is covering, now, is his arse.

He wants to keep his coveted leadership chair, as well. While congress' "popularity" sinks into the gutter.

I could care less what Lindsey Graham thinks or says.

But it should bother party members who need votes to get elected. And, by now? After he called his own constituents "BIGOTS" on immigration; you think this "surge" will puff him up again, to "standard size?" Or ya think he smells defeat? Oh, not in a general election. But in a primary bout.

Just like Larry Craig. So many Americans decided to focus, early, on the 2008 elections; just about anything is possible.

But when it comes to congress; I know one thing. Self-interest, and cash, are the only motivators.

Graham is the only Congressman to serve in Iraq?

My memory is faulty here, but I could have sworn there was another Republican Congressman who had been called up as a reserve. I remember this because when his re-election came up, the Democrats used his service against him, claiming that by going to Iraq he was failing to serve his constituents, who expected him to serve as a lawmaker, not a soldier.

Maybe it was a state congressman. Does anyone remember?

RBMN, you are right on, the Iraqis needed time to see who the real enemy wanting to take them over was and found out it was other muslims. Sadly it may take the same sort of violence to force the issue here at home with our head in the sand lefties trying to fool the American sheeple that all will be OK if we just cut and run. Appears nothing comes logical in the mainstream lefty media.

filistro~ I notice Britain remained in Iraq another 10 years after that letter was written. I also notice Iraq had been under Turkish rule before the region was partitioned, which is a totally different situation from what we have today. Not sure what your point was, but none of it fits anyway.

filistro, your Churchill quote is quite interesting. However, let's be reminded (as the NYT is trying to do this week) that analogies can only go so far. Churchill was writing almost 90 years ago about Iraq. Today, there is developed oil wealth, which some seek to control and use for their stated intent of mass destruction of the West. Then, as now, Iraq is centrally located in the ME, yet today it is very critically important to our nation's security that it not be turned over to chaos and extremists. Though Churchill failed in his day to contain the problems, it does not follow that we should also concede defeat, in our time.

I've never been able to understand where the belief comes from, that terrorist organizations will be able to effectively manage and run an industrialized society. There's little evidence that anyone whose stated intention is to cause 'mass destruction of the West' has the ability or desire to mire themselves in bureaucracy...

How about IMaLittlenutjob in Iran? Suppose he's not a terrorist bent on destroying Isreal or the west

Captain- you need to change "counter-intelligence" to "counter-insurgency" in your blog post..

Cycloptichorn:

They don't care about running an industrialized society. They just want to kill or convert anyone in their realm.

You forget that the do gooders in the "West" will help them out with all the food and money they need to keep going.

Cyclo,
I've not heard of the belief that :"terrorist organizations will be able to effectively manage and run an industrialized society". Therefore your failure to understand it is plain. (who has ever said that? where did you hear that?)
I have heard and read the Islamists' desires to return all societies to sharia law. The global caliphate thingy? Taliban controlled Afghan-style the world over. Chances are you would be one of the first to go (in front of the firing squad. "Intellectuals" are not allowed.)
Basic Human God Given Rights are at stake here, and you're dismissal of the threat due to the lack of managerial asperations is revealing. You aren't listinening, or believing what they are saying. Which one is it?

Listening.
Sorry.

Davod:

In that case, I'm not particularly worried about them using the oil resources of Iraq against us, as was alleged by an earlier poster.

Who are the 'do gooders' in the West who are going to give AQ all the food and money they need? Specifically.

DHunter,

Ahmenijad (or however it's spelled) is a ruler of a country who is not particularly aligned with our interests and has many bad or evil tendencies; but he's hardly a terrorist. You may want to look up the definition of that word.

Although working at the tribal level has had a short term benefit to us with regards to AQ, isn't it actually undermining our long term strategy which is to stand up a strong national government?

Micah,

I'm not afraid of what essentially amounts to an empty threat. It's the international equivalent of a guy standing on a soapbox, yelling about his plan to take over New York city with his air rifle.

The US, and the West in general, are not threatened by any Muslim nation in the slightest. How could we possibly be? They have no armed forces to speak of. No air forces to speak of. No navy. No space resources. We outnumber them in nukes about ten thousand to one. How exactly do you think they are going to go about creating this 'global caliphate?' Have you really though this through?

You asked about the 'managing an industrial society' part - from a few posts above, which I was responding to:

"Today, there is developed oil wealth, which some seek to control and use for their stated intent of mass destruction of the West."

Terrorists have absolutely zero ability to manage and run a developed oil enterprise. We don't have to worry much about the oil wealth being used against us here, especially in military terms - unless, perhaps, our allies in Saudi Arabia (home to the 9/11 hijackers and AQ in general) decided to turn on us. And if they did, they would be immediately crushed like bugs.

I don't understand where this fear of the US failing comes from; don't you realize that our military strength is overwhelming? We have a difficult time dealing with and combating terrorism, because we are not truly threatened enough to engage in total war; if we faced an existential threat as a nation, more then just terrorism, then you would see other countries simply cease to exist before you would see the US be imperiled in the slightest.

First, the Sunnis don't have the numbers to threaten the Shi'ites and Kurds anymore, who are not only more heavily armed but are also better trained. The days of Sunni-only rule are over forever.

Second, the reconciliation happening at the grass-roots level has the potential of expanding upward until it includes the highest levels of government.

Iraq is at a unique crossroads in its history. Polls show that Iraqis are turning away from religion and tribalism, having seen the backwardness and violence they bring.

Dredging up 90-year-old articles about Iraq makes as much sense as chanting "Bush lied, people died!"

Fillistro, Moshe Dayan lost an eye, in 1942, in Iraq! The Jews were helping lay out a back-channel, so Montgomery's troops could escape. (True. Montgomery, THEN won at Al-Alimein, in Eygpt. Wasn't necessary to save his ass, after all.)

But among the "big debates," in DC. At Christmas-time, 1941; while Winston Churchill spent 3-secret weeks in our White House; was the "approach" to Hilter. When we revved up our war efforts.

Very few Americans were "hot" for the Africa plan. But Winston Churchill won FDR over to it.

And, one reason Rommell was in Africa, with his Afrika-Corps of tanks; was that Hitler had studied the map. And, was out to enslave the world. Hilter wanted the RESOURCES! From his point of view, capturing Africa came FIRST. And, Irak was THE KEY.

Hitler saw himself as going all the way down, capturing all of Africa; and then sailing across the Atlantic to hit South and Central America(s). Japan was then signed on to attack from across the Pacific. And, America would have had the 3-strikes. Germans coming out at us on the Atlantic Coast, and up our Southern border. Plus, Japan was to enter through California.

Those were the plans. And, life just didn't work out that way.

Why is Irak important? Because it contains the oil fields the Soddie's are now fighting, with terror to get. And, the Iranians, for their own desires to achieve wealth and real estate; are also fighting for.

All that stops them is our military. Less than 200,000 troops. Holding the hole in the dyke.

With the Bonkeys, and the media doing all they can to upset the applecart.

Up to now? Neither the CIA's candidate, ALLAWI, who has run away to Amman, Jordan. Or Chalabi, who is supposed to be the State Department "guy." Are on a winning track.

Maliki's got it about right. Irak's a free country, and it's not up to other heads of states, or the media, to topple governments.

I'm not surprised at all the noise, though. Heck, we have our own 2008 elections coming; and the Bonkeys don't seem to be gaining ground. What other choices do they have, though?

And, how much of a difference is made, these days, by the Internet?

Tom W:
"Second, the reconciliation happening at the grass-roots level has the potential of expanding upward until it includes the highest levels of government"

What you're calling a reconciliation is actually the Sunnis' realization that AQ is a bigger enemy right now than the Americans. I'm sure you realize that if they are successful with AQ they'll turn their guns right back on us.

Even so, how could this process 'expand upwards into the highest levels of government' ?

Cyclo,
okay, you say "empty threat". that means you don't believe them.
do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

gregdn: For what it's worth ...

The Sunni's were once at 20% of the population of Irak. But that was when there were palestinians, imported by Saddam, among them. They're gone now.

And, when Iraq The Model's OMAR, told of his own horror story, where he couldn't "pick up his visa to study in America," because the American Embassy in Amman was holding it! Visa wasn't delivered to Baghdad.

And, OMAR talked of the terrible 17 hours he spent in Jordan's airport, UNABLE to leave. Just as the other "hostages" were also kept from entering Jordan; he wrote that he had to climb on board another plane (with lots of other Iraqi's), "to go back home."

Huh? I said. That was my reaction. Wazzup with dat?

Well, it seems Jordan doesn't want to be a point where Sunni's can just come in to them from Irak, anymore.

So, the "getting out" part is stalled.

While all the way across the Gulf, there are "displaced" Sunni's, living with their other relatives. Unable to "go home." And, unable to "get rich" on Irak's oil reserves.

They can cry me a riva.

There's enough termoil in the Mideast, that most Americans are just clueless. On par with trying to explain to Americans, that not all American Indian tribes were friendly with each other. But were definitely at war with each other, when settlers weren't handy. It's the nature of the beast.

After a few hundred years, though, this stuff passes.

Maliki, on the other hand, got elected. No, he didn't sweep 51%. Because the Shi'a, alone, are not that strong. But he's allied himself with others. And, now?

Well, where I learn my parliamentary lessons, the most, is watching and folowing Israel's circus. So, I know back benchers; especially those that have no traction come another election, go furiously at Olmert. He hasn't been shoved out yet!

But by trying to unseat Olmert, they're hoping to be "players" in another arrangement.

People free to vote, notice. You'll never pick this up in the media, though. Israel's got it's own communists, and pundits, as bad as the crap, we have, here. But among themselves? TOPICS OF THE DAY! And, the press ain't winning. Nor are the stinking lawyers.

I wish Maliki the best of luck. He's got way more experience than either Allawi and Chalabi, combined. He's NOT in America's pocket, that's true. But that's also a plus.

And, Maliki, fearing for his life, ran out of Irak during Saddam's time. But he lived, nearby. 10 years in Damasacus. And, another 10 in Tehran. Notice this: NOT IN AMMAN. So the shrimp-king ain't a player. While Chalabi, in 1991 stole all the cash out of Jordan's banking system. Which is how he became a billionnaire.

There's more crap in that toilet that stinks from the CIA to State, than you can shake a stick at.

Who wins? Stay tuned.

Cyclo, you play word games . I don't need to look up the definition of terrorist when Imalittlenutjob in Iran talks about eliminating Israel and submitting the West to Islamic law his aims are terroristic and if he gets nukes may have a shot. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck it's probably a duck. he walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist - close enough for me...

Micah,

You misunderstand me. I do believe that they (at least some of them) intend what they say; I don't believe that they have the CAPABILITY to do anything of the sort.

I'm not sure why you brought up the 9/11 thing.

I ask you again: what has lead you to believe that there is any actual chance of any sort of 'worldwide caliphate' occurring? Specifically.

How long has the pro-war crowd been singing that same old refrain (in a nutshell, "give war a chance")? More importantly, how gullible do you have to be in order to keep buying it?

Cyclo, you play word games . I don't need to look up the definition of terrorist when Imalittlenutjob in Iran talks about eliminating Israel and submitting the West to Islamic law his aims are terroristic and if he gets nukes may have a shot. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck it's probably a duck. he walks like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist - close enough for me...

Micah,

You misunderstand me. I do believe that they (at least some of them) intend what they say; I don't believe that they have the CAPABILITY to do anything of the sort.

I'm not sure why you brought up the 9/11 thing.

I ask you again: what has lead you to believe that there is any actual chance of any sort of 'worldwide caliphate' occurring? Specifically.

Texas Bob,

Good job, shipmate!

Hey, Captain Ed, in the second to last paragraph, did you mean to say "General David Petraeus had finally implemented the correct counterINSURGENCY strategy"?

I posted the Churchill letter to show that there's nothing new under the sun.

85 years ago when Britain was trying militarily to stabilize the new country of Iraq, they were in almost exactly the same situation that we are today. As Otter points out, Britain stayed another 10 years. What did it accomplish?

More than 100 years ago, Rudyard Kipling wrote about our situation in Afghanistan:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Dreams of effecting substantial change in the Middle East (especially with guns and tanks) are just that... dreams. Our energies would be better spent working toward energy conservation and self-sufficiency. Then we could say to hell with their oil and leave them to their thousand-year squabbles.

Lindsey Graham is serving his country in the military and I commend him for this, but that doesn't make him a paragon of virtue.
Lindsey Graham showed his true colors by kissing up to Splash Kennedy, and denigrating those who opposed his amnesty bill.
He is a weasel and all the trips to Iraq will not ultimately erase that.
Attorney General John Mitchell who served under Nixon during Watergate was a WW ll navy hero,but went to jail for his illegal actions.
John Kerry served in Nam, this didn't make his politics any cleaner.Lyndon Johnson served in WW ll but this didn't stop him from being the consummate political wheeler dealer. John Murtha served in Nam, is his thinking sound? Senator Jim Webb of Virginia served in Nam and is a certified kook. Former Senator Bob Kerry of Nebraska was a medal of honor winner in Nam but was still a left wing loon.
Most Americans do not know that Benedict Arnold whose name is synonymous with treason was a military hero in the Revolutionary War before he sold out his fellow Americans.
Commend them for their military service if they so deserve but don't let this blind you to their otherwise political insanity.

Cyclo,
sorry about the delay in response.
specifically, 9/11 makes me think they have the capability.
do you understand the demographic realities of birth rates?
Iran, right now, may not have the capability. I'm not arguing they do. noone is.
In 50 years, IF present birth rates continue, muslims will be majority in europe, in russia, in all kinds of places, save china and usa. russia and europe have more than a nuke or two.
who hasn't thought what through?

Publius Hamilton said of Democrat Congress critter Baird of Washington being impressed with the surge:

"I'm sure Pelosi and Murtha and their thugs, er Whips, are working them over for their gall to undermine Madame Nancy and the Kos-sacks."

Exactly right, but they did it in a more subtle way: they had their puppets in the mainstream media totally ignore the story. Baird's atory came out well over a week ago, but a Google News search over a 1 week period showed that it was almost totally ignored by the "objective" national reporters. The most insidious media bias is the news that doesn't get reported. Geobbels would be proud of these guys.

cyclops says:

"I've never been able to understand where the belief comes from, that terrorist organizations will be able to effectively manage and run an industrialized society."

In the run up to 9/11, as was dicovered later, al Qaeda had a very sophisticated management structure. bin Laden and his cronies are no idiots. Are you claiming that they couldn't run an industrialized society better than the inept idiots you claim have been running it for many years? After all, Bush is an idiot with an MBA from Harvard. On the other hand, bin Laden supposedly studied economics and business administration at King Abdulazzis University.

Cyclops also said:

"I'm not afraid of what essentially amounts to an empty threat. It's the international equivalent of a guy standing on a soapbox, yelling about his plan to take over New York city with his air rifle."

You mention that no Muslim country has the forces to bring the US to its knees. That's not exactly true, as I'm sure a US invasion of Iran would prove.

And anyway, we're not talking about Muslim countries, we're talking about a non-country, al Qaeda. They managed to do something that Tojo, Hitler, Mao or Stalin and their state military machines were never able to accomplish-they staged the worst attack ever on US soil.

filistro says:

"I posted the Churchill letter to show that there's nothing new under the sun.

85 years ago when Britain was trying militarily to stabilize the new country of Iraq, they were in almost exactly the same situation that we are today. As Otter points out, Britain stayed another 10 years. What did it accomplish?"

There's nothing wrong with quoting 85 year old Churchill articles, but remember that Churchill wasn't without his flaws either (ever heard of "Gallipoli"?). His time in Iraq was just a few years after that debacle. Luckily he wised up, but was still laughed at (see below)

You mentiond last night that you're anti interventionism. Churchill was a major advocate of interventionism. He was also widely ridiculed for his opposition to those appeasing Hitler in the 1930s.

If you want to read some sober, informed, current opinion on how things are going over in Iraq 85 years after Churchill was there, I would highly recommend the website of Victor Davis Hanson.

Professor Hanson, who is a lifelong Democrat, owns a farm in central California-the same farm he was born in over 50 years ago-and is an distinguished professor of history-especially military history-who has written several excellent books and also has been a visiting professor at the US Naval Academy

http://www.victorhanson.com/Author/index.html

Here's one of his better historical rants:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031907.html

reddog: "Chickenhawks", you say? You're obviously not a bird-watcher. That particular family of birds is as vicious and bloody when slaughtering their prey as any bird on the planet. Please ask Paul Begala to give you a new buzzword.