Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.

Everyone can speculate all day long what will happen. But fact is, none of us have a crystal ball.

Therefore I have chosen to listen to what the enemy says what will happen when the US withdraws. From Zawahiri’s Q&A interview just this past week.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

INRE the Awakening Council… those that have turned on the jihad movement’s efforts to destabilize Iraq.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

I figure, from the mouth of the enemy, they plan to go full force back into battle in Iraq to to rid themselves of an “apostate” Arab government the Iraqi’s have dared to form… an “unIslamic” democracy. Or as they define their objectives after ridding Arab lands of all Crusader/Jew/UN presence and influence:

the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

If you choose to listen to media “experts” and talking heads instead of the stated intentions of the enemy, we be in deep s*#t.

all with the intent of making Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terror (in accordance with UN1483sec1-4)”

Except that John McCaibn is the only one who I belive has no intention of keeping that promise, especially if he achieves his aim of extending the war into Iran He will flip-flop on that one as fast as he did on the MLK Holiday, or his opinion of Pat Robertson.

“Bomb, Bomb, Bom
Bomb, Bomb Iran!”
Senator John McCain

By the way, how many decades will it be before Iraq becomes George W. Bush’s “Shining Example of Democracy” in the Middle East?

Scott: This guy is an expert, at least moreso than you and I:
ESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ
By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.

Aah…the general who inspired the coining of the phrase, “Odom’s Razor”:

• 1) “Shave away all essential plans for victory to arrive at the quickest defeat possible”
• 2) “Never attribute to military experience, what can adequately be explained away to normal stupidity.”

What part is imagining:

-the captured regime members, captured AQ, captured docs, all confirm that Saddam was a terrorist threat.
“v. Conclusion
One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is /yes/.”
[btw, no emphasis added on that 'yes'. It's emphasized in the report]

-the ISG Duelfer report spent 1000 pages describing how Saddam’s regime was a wmd threat, just not in the form of stockpiles.
“It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,”
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay

-how can anyone doubt that Democrats have made opposition to the Iraq War their core issue in the past three elections? Do you really believe the professional lawyer politicians of either party?

Look High Plains, I opposed the war, didn’t believe President Bush, and I didn’t believe the opposition’s rantings either. I turned to the bi-partisan investigations and the UN’s claims instead. Take away the D or the R, and it turns out the invasion was not only necessary, but inevitable, unavoidable, and was in fact the last resort.

omg, linking to Afterdowningstreet is like linking to the PNAC. Lt Gen Odom is a Lt Gen. Gen Petraeus is a little higher in rank, intimately more familiar with the situation, but most of all…Odom’s irrelevant. All three candidates have the same plan: continue drawdowns based on conditions on the ground, then leave enough forces in Iraq to:
protect US citizens,
train Iraqis
fight al queda

all with the intent of making Iraq a secure and stable ally in the war on terror (in accordance with UN1483sec1-4)

…nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran’s regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies’ interest.

Good viewpoint here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/03/michael-ware-interview/

war will last 100yrs-you yourself admit McCain didn’t say this, and no one has said it or advocated it, but people with political agendas have had a happy time claiming exactly that.

war cost $3trillion-maybe $4trillion, maybe $100trillion in 100yrs. The funny thing is, when you add up all the spending appropriated to the war in Iraq it’s barely $500bn in 5yrs, but people with political agendas NEVER miss the chance to combine the cost of the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, and global war on terror as a single cost (interestingly enough while claiming the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror). Often, they’ll even toss in speculative costs done to the economy, perhaps double the combined numbers, and bammo…the highest, most alarming cost in dollars is presented as fact and fuel for opposing the war/supporting the enemy’s objective: unconditional, immediate withdrawal

war killed 2-3million Iraqis-Iraq Body Count keeps track of the bodies, and says about 100k have been killed in Iraq since it started, about 20,000 from US fire, about 30,000 caught in the crossfire, and the rest from enemy fire. Yet people with political agendas lump all these together and blame the US forces who haven’t killed even half of the bodies found, then those same political agenda types feel free to make speculative estimates that are 10x or 20x the number of real bodies found. Bammo…the most alarming cost in blood is presented as fact and fuel for opposing the war/supporting the enemy’s objective: unconditional, immediate withdrawal

no wmd threat-The ISG looked into it, wrote a 1000page report called the Duelfer report. It’s pictures alone prove there was a WMD threat (just not in the form of stockpiles). Would someone summarize the 700pg book, Moby Dick as 5 letters, “WHALE”? No, but they feel free to talk about 1000pg report with pics as 5 letters, “NOWMD”. Dr. Kay said it best (though it’s completely ignored by people with political agendas to satisfy), “It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,”
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay

no ties to Al Queda-well, the Pentagon’s investigation into 1/6 of the captured documents from Iraq (rpt released last week) simply destroys this myth. ‘Course, the claim was always based on half truths, half quotes from investigations, and people with political agendas

Bush lied-pre-war intel on Iraq’s been investigated a dozen times by 3 countries and the UN, by independent and bi-partisan groups, and only partisan investigations have said he “distorted” or “misled”. Even they won’t say he lied. Cause guess what? He didn’t. There was very weak and limited intel, but that has a bi-partisan cause, and no one (particularly those running for President) wanted that out there.

it’s all about oil & American imperialism-This cry comes loudest from socialist (gosh, imagine that), but if it’s all about oil…why’s my gas cost so much, and if it’s about imperialism or colonialism, then why is the “economy so bad”? Nah, oil’s part of it, but the mideast has TWO major exports: oil, and terror. In the case of Iraq, it’s about terrorists, and terrorist sponsors wanting the oil, while the US wanting to fight terrorists.

“What I disagree with is that you say the three candidates are alike in their approch to ending the war. I think the Democratic candidates are similar in that they have a rough timetable to get out, but not McCain. He thinks the surge is working and he wants to stay until we “win”, but will not define that. I want that definition. If he is going to spend $2billion a day our our maney he owes us that.”

All three candidates have said that they want to see a free, stable, and secure Iraq that is an ally in the war on terror. That’s GWB’s definition of success, McCain’s, Obama’s, and Clinton’s (though the latter two change their positions often depending on the crowd and the polls).
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

Dare to imagine the unthinkable:
Iraq wasn’t flooded with WMD, but inspections couldn’t possibly simultaneously check every desk drawer for a coffee can of anthrax (thus inspections couldn’t prove Iraq had no wmd), but Iraq was a WMD threat in the same way that a serial killer who always killed with a Tommy Gun sat in a room with a disassembled colt 45, empty casings, a box of hollow points ready to load, a bag of powder, and a basement setup to load his own shells. Then, when you wonder if the guy’s a threat, he says, I could kill all of you with 45cal, and I want to kill all of you. Hmmm, is this guy a threat? Uh, yeah.
Now imagine that (as captured regime leaders, captured AQ, and captured documents all confirm) Saddam’s regime was a terrorist threat. Saddam’s regime worked with groups in the Al Queda network of terrorist groups, and Saddam’s regime was more than willing to work with radical extremists-wary of them, but more than willing and historically had used them.
Lastly, imagine that as much as GWB and Republicans needed the war as a political crutch-as much as you’d imagine they would distort intel-two dozen Democrats running for President and hundreds running for office needed to oppose the war as a crutch/draw issue just as badly OR MORE SO.

Complain all y’all want about GWB and Iraq. The next President-no matter who it is-will seek to continue force drawdowns, but will continue the occupation for decades.

And it is the youth in Iran where we place our greatest hopes.

Which brings us back to the reality that the majority of Muslim nations do not “vote” to make Sharia/Islamic rule the law of the state.

And on this coast, it’s a bit early to mar such a beautious day with such a spew of talking points!

But I’d sure like to know who said the clock’s run out, and the game of “Surge” is in checkmate. Strikes me as Iraq is early on in it’s battle to control and police itself. I could be wrong, but isn’t Basra the first major battle done solo?

Another article which backs up your previous one.

Violence Leaves Young Iraqis Doubting Clerics

In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.

“I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us,” said Sara, a high school student in Basra. “Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don’t deserve to be rulers.”

Atheer, a 19-year-old from a poor, heavily Shiite neighborhood in southern Baghdad, said: “The religion men are liars. Young people don’t believe them. Guys my age are not interested in religion anymore.”

The shift in Iraq runs counter to trends of rising religious practice among young people across much of the Middle East, where religion has replaced nationalism as a unifying ideology.

While religious extremists are admired by a number of young people in other parts of the Arab world, Iraq offers a test case of what could happen when extremist theories are applied. Fingers caught in the act of smoking were broken. Long hair was cut and force-fed to its wearer. In that laboratory, disillusionment with Islamic leaders took hold.

I’d like to know what makes Robert in BA label (libel?) General Petraeus a political hack.

And as I said in my previous comment, it’s not the way I read your original point; with your clarification, there’s really no disagreement. Consider this, however: if there had been an insurgency in Japan, with suicidal acts of defiance that cost thousands of American lives as well as the lives of Japanese innocents and police forces, post-war, would you have said “it’s not worth the effort?” The comparison is superficial and definitely imperfect with strong differences in situation, but I’m just curious to know.

Scott #121:

$3trillion? Wow, what exaggerated estimate is that one from? Last I’d heard the war’s opponents were claiming $2trillion and $2million dead.

The figure comes from Joseph Stiglitz’ new book, and all the lefties are touting the number.

It’s slanted to find the worst possible figure you can dream up.

However also, theoretically, in democracy, when you figure out you made a mistake, you vote them out in the next election. And now, I’ll brace myself for the Bush = mistake comments…. But then, I do consider anyone elected “my President” as well… even if I don’t like he/she. I’ll just reserve the option to vote them out next time, and brace myself for what their policies may bring.

INRE “creating more AQ than we are destroying”… I beg to challenge that. I found this article interesting from a female Saudi journalist - a story on a ex OBL/Tora Bora/Camp Gitmo jihadi. Good story all around, but this particular quote caught my eye…

He was released in 2006 into a world radically altered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim fighters were no longer viewed in Arab countries as larger-than-life heroes, and clerics had stopped urging young Muslims to fulfill their religious duties by fighting on behalf of their brethren.

Subtle progress - mostly ignored - in battling the ideology is the decline of admiration for the jihad movement because of their rules of engagement. It is also creating internal battles and rifts. Sadly it took a scenario in Iraq where they had ample opportunity to show their disregard for innocents, including fellow Muslims, for them to start losing favor.

I do not limit the bad guys to those who carry the AQ membership card. The global Islamic jihad movement is comprised of those who seek to implement Shariah/Islamic law by means of violence and fear. AQ is merely an “association” with morphing members. However they often bond with non-members of like values, i.e. the neo-Taliban. The original Taliban as well, until they had a recent falling out for internal power battles.

BTW… pour a glass for me. May be early, but I think I can take it!