What Was Gained By Invading Iraq?

Loading

There’s an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal (yet another one claiming that the war in Iraq is effectively over, and that the United States has won), and it brought to mind two interesting thoughts:

1) What was gained by invading Iraq
and
2) How long before people who opposed the invasion not only recognize success, but recognize what was gained?

In response to the first:

Perhaps it’s worth considering what we have gained now that Iraq looks like a winner. Here’s a partial list: Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.
Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.
We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe. As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared “central battlefield,” and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles.
We also have — if still only prospectively — an Arab bulwark against Iran’s encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership.

…and the second?

None of these are achievements to sneer at, all the more so because they were won through so much sacrifice. Mr. Fukuyama has now granted the “narrow” point of our bet in the form of a personal check. Here’s betting him $100 back that he will come around to conceding the broader case for the war in Iraq — shall we say, on the 10th anniversary of its liberation?

Let’s be clear, the war in Iraq is not over, but there is great success, and the path toward ending the war there is very clearly on the right path. As to recognizing success? Well, given that for so many people opposition to the war was/is/will be merely a catalyst for expressing and venting dissatisfaction with President Bush…it seems unlikely that recognition of success brought about by the invasion will come anytime soon. However, recognizing post-invasion success will come about for many people in a mere 5 months if Senator Obama becomes President Obama. Take away opposition to President Bush, and the opposition to the war disappears for most people.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

excellent. i am coming to conclusion that it just takes folks longer to process reality than one would like. the wedge was the last remaining alternative after 9/11 and it is in fact an overwhelming success. i dare say had it taken 10 years to bear fruit, it would equally have been a success…..

The silent gain is we have stuck it out through a tough time, politically at home and worldwide, to bring peace and freedom to a country. We did not screw up the end game, we made the point that when it comes down to it the United States can come through and weather the storm to the peace beyond. We stopped the bad guys in their tracks and further we demonstrated that in the long run the United States was the ally and not the enemy.

It will not go unnoticed in the Arab states, nor around the world, that Iraq has happened and that peace and freedom prevailed. It will however go unnoticed at home because domestically we have elections that both political parties are addicted to. One only slightly more so than the other.

I will treasure this time. For once in my life a president has slogged through and finished a job he started, he did not betray his troops, and he suffered many years of bellicose abuse from the press for having done so. Thank you George Bush. History will be kind to you, if not the LAT, NYT, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, and all the other paper based rags that are losing their time in history. The words of your praise will never be printed in those publications, and soon enough nothing else ever will either.

Are you people serious? We gained nothing by invading Iraq, neither in the short term or the future. We got attacked on 9/11 then rightfully invaded Afghanistan, and all the sudden we are engrossed in a quagmire in Iraq that had nothing to do with the events on 9/11. What America did by invading Iraq is just prove how dumb and ignorant we are to the rest of the world. What if we were attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor in 1941, then FDR saw fit to invade China, because it was “in the general area” as our aggressors in Japan? If you take a step back and look at what Bush and his cronies did it’s almost laughable, and the sad part is we “the American people” bought the line they fed us hook, sinker and all. Did we ever find WMD’s in Iraq? NO. Did we ever find a concrete link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, despite the CIA trying it’s hardest to make the Iraq/ Al Queda link appear to be something that it wasn’t? NO. You let the right wing media convince you the roadside bombings on American soldiers was the work of Al Queda or “insurgents”, when in actuality all those poor Iraqis that have been killed in the unjust war should be labeled patriots for defending their homeland. If a foreign power invaded the USA and walked down Main Street in middle America I’m sure all you red blooded Americans would be dong the same thing the Iraqis are doing AND DEFEND YOUR HOMELAND. The audacity of some of us Americans is hilarious at times, what are they not supposed to defend what is rightfully there homeland? Not to mention that most of the Iraqis can probably trace there roots back in the region between the Tigris and Euphrates River’s back hundreds if not thousands of years. Can’t the say the same for 95% of us Americans, and on top of all that if you really think the delusional sociopath we called Sadam Hussein really posed a threat to the good ol shores of the USA, you probably also believe that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with 9/11.

Here are some hidden losers from the war in Iraq. The Commanche helicopter program, the stealth destroyer program (just 2 ships built) and the major downturn in the number of F-22s that will be built. Then there are probably dozens of other secret weapons programs that were scrapped because the quanity and types of enemies don’t justify the expense. The Air Force tried to justify getting more F-22s because they claimed India would attack the U.S. Talk about grasping for something. The navy and the army have each asked for $8 billion over what was given to them. That’s a major downturn in the amount previously reqested. The only reason the Air Force has asked for more money was because it wants to replace its aging fleet with many craft being 50 or more years old.

Then there are major shifts as the number of enemies on the national level decreases perhaps to one (Iran). To keep its budget, the army has decided to get into the nation building business. Imagine the army fighting things like poverty, water contamination, AIDS, Malaria and famine while it waits for a new enemy on the national level besides Iran. The U.S. Navy wants to switch to small multipurpose ships (fast freighters that can carry cargo as well as launch missles, helicopters or VTOL aircraft depending on their configuration), much like the armed Spanish galleons which last sailed in the 1700s. The aircraft carrier could eventually follow the battleship into obsolescence.

I can agree with the “Saddam is dead” part. The rest is either too simplistic, or flat-out wrong. (A government that “does not sponsor terrorism”? The Shiites in the government have condoned or even aided ethnic cleansing!!)

And you’ve forgotten the more than one million Iraqi dead (by scientific consensus), the 4 to 5 million refugees, internal and external, the fact that Turkey is bombing the Kurds in the north and factions are fighting over Kirkuk, among many other problems.

Add that to the fact that we don’t matter nearly as much as we’d like to think (our troops function as police; how effective do you think police who don’t know the local language and culture can be?), and that with a record-setting deficit looming, we can’t AFFORD to stay if the country is not a direct threat, and the arguments for staying in Iraq in force look pretty weak.

Defend the homeland by killing each other?

Oh man…Kemmet’s post had the best ending I’ve seen anywhere in a LONG LONG TIME. Not since the Ron Paul bots went back on their meds.

And Gregory…was it 1, 2, or 20 million Iraqis killed? I can’t keep up with the exaggerations/”scientific estimates”

100,000 killed over 5 years w 2/3 to 3/4 being killed by regime remnants and suicide bombers (almost all suicide bombers were foreign jihadis of the Al Queda strain). Yeah…50million dead sounds about right.

Wait-sorry, I forgot to multiply by pi

Al Qaeda & Iraq are one in the same. The silly analogy to Pearl Harbor doesn’t hold water because the fundamental difference is Japan is a country – Iraq pre-war wasn’t a country; it was a stronghold run by a corrupt family; a loosely organized mob with money. Terrorism is in fact a cause. It knows few political boundaries and the fact is, countries that harbor terrorism are in fact non-integrating and by definition enemies. Now, clearly one doesn’t just go around invading wantonly but to reduce Iraq to a mistake misses the point entirely.

Iraq is the cornerstone of a wedge strategy in the Middle East. A wedge is needed to create a stabilizing force so the Arab Muslim problem can begin to grow the real seeds of change – political and cultural change. Forget nation building, the new neocon is culture building. If what you want is to climb inside a pretty little ivory tower and pretend that the world is just one big happy lovefest were it not for the big bad American military, so be it. But the fact is 9/11 was an inflection point just as 11/9 was for the Berlin Wall, just as Pearl Harbor was for WWII. We are in a supercycle for many reasons but primarily because the lines of communication and commerce have brought vastly different cultures crashing together – many of which simply are unsuited for the 21st century. Folks need to read more or at least spend some time in the third world to get a real sense for how dangerous things really are in some areas. Lastly, the US is at the end of day a great nation because in general we use our power to assist, to build and to free – clearly errors have been made – but to choose blind views that ignore the facts simply because of ideology is kind of stupid. Read Friedman’s piece in the NYT today. Were it not for the war in Iraq, things would in fact be much much more dangerous, not only in the Middle East but here at home as well.

Iraq was brilliant. Knocking out the largest Arab amy in history in 20 days – no less. On a WMD guess provided cold rolled steel bona fides that Great Satan is crazy and unpredictable after 911 and sent a very cool message to intolerant, militias, illegitimate, murderous, courpt regimes that she is down right scary and lethal. “Dumb and ignorant’ Kemmet? Actually, that phrase fits enemies of fun and free choice like Ba’Athists, Sadrists and Khomeinists (and inappropriate, weak and boring handwringers like Great Satan’s critics).

Turning Iraq into a giant sucker trap for wanna be jihadis’, Saudi rejects, Iranian minions and Syrian agents accomplished quite a bit before surge slammed the trap shut and turned Iraq into a giant killing machine – grinding up wanna be jihadis’, Saudi rejects, Iranian minions and Syrian agents.

Like proving caliphating totally sucks – your choice – the AQ chaotic way or the new school Iranian style. Iraqis’ rejected it, giving the entire ME the chance to see it, touch it and say ‘no thanks.’

Iraq was a sweet harbinger that proves America unbound is liable to act out anytime anywhere.

Kemmett – You are an idiot, with all due (not) respect. Let me repeat myself: Iraq under Hussein was not a country; Iraqis under Hussein were not a citizenry but rather subjects of a ruling family; Iraq today is in the early stages of acting like a country; Iraqis today are citizens; Primary reason for change: The US Invasion.

Nice post Fred. I liked that earlier analogy to Roosevelt post 12/7, and I couldn’t help but notice that he chose to speculate about FDR attacking CHINA after Japan attacked the US. As if FDR didn’t attack Germany (yeah, racist Hitler was oh-so-close to Tojo, and there are so many battles in WWII history where German and Japanese forces collaborated or operated together-not).

Some people just don’t get it….but they probably think George Bush had nothing to do with 911, right? BWAHAHAAHA!!!

courtneyme109 – excellent post. Condi Rice laid the whole thing out in an article in Foreign Policy a few months back. worth the read.

my bad, Foreign Affairs, do a search on realclearpolitics – its called Rethinking National Interest

Hi Fred. Thanks! Yeah I ‘ve got it. I did a bit on it called ‘Rebranding’

http://greatsatansgirlfriend.blogspot.com/2008/06/rebranding.html

She really makes the case.

What if we were attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor in 1941, then FDR saw fit to invade China, because it was “in the general area” as our aggressors in Japan?

Kemmet Aziz… you’re an idiot. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, Churchill and Roosevelt had the strategy to defeat Germany first. They weren’t the ones who bombed us, if you’ll remember.

Our troops went first to North Africa… not Japan, nor Germany. Rommel was sent their early 1941. And we had no troop presence in Europe at that time.

A global war strategy – as this is against stateless Islamic jihad operating world wide – focuses not just on the original offending nation, but the entire theatre.

Pick up a dang history book, would ya?

Did we ever find WMD’s in Iraq? NO. Did we ever find a concrete link between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, despite the CIA trying it’s hardest to make the Iraq/ Al Queda link appear to be something that it wasn’t? NO.

I guess you consider Saddam’s dealings with Zawahiri as both EIJ and AQ since 1993 “no link”, eh? See the Harmony/IIS documents for the proof you haven’t bothered to read and get with the times.

Can’t the say the same for 95% of us Americans, and on top of all that if you really think the delusional sociopath we called Sadam Hussein really posed a threat to the good ol shores of the USA, you probably also believe that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with 9/11.

Well that says it all…. Credibility? You have none. You’re a piss poor excuse for an American citizen… if you are at all.

Hi Fred Thanks! I did catch it and did a bit on it at GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD called ‘Rebranding” Rice rocks. No shame in her game.

I take it we won Vietnam also. This post is meaningless. The answer to your question is nothing has been gained from this war. People like you want to justify it by the measure of dead and wounded soldiers. Iraq is not a democracy a won’t be one for a very long time, and if it ever becomes one it will not be because of us. Shame on you and all people that subscribe to this neocon policy.

Darn! Mata beat me to it. Nazi Germany did not attack us on Dec. 7, 1941 but we saw the strategic sense in taking them out first.

That kind of geostratic strategy is totally lost on fools who can’t think beyond the bumper stickers they substitute for rationality.

I like what Moody Deep Thinker said: “I will treasure this time. For once in my life a president has slogged through and finished a job he started, he did not betray his troops, and he suffered many years of bellicose abuse from the press for having done so.”

I would just add that it wasn’t the press that did nothing but abuse President Bush for being right, it was Democrats in Congress who insisted we cannot win, we have lost, we should get out and watch Iraq sink into the swamp of evil that Democrats assumed it was.

It’s wishful thinking to expect that so many of those political leaders who were WRONG, DEAD WRONG on Iraq should be held to account. They always seem to have an excuse, even if they never have a reason.

Nothing great this country ever does is easy. But this country IS great because we do occasionally have leaders who realize we cannot fail when we rise to the challenge instead of slink away from it.

P.S. Jake: We lost Vietnam because DEMOCRATS forced us to abandon the fight just as we are winning. Boo hoo for you that you weren’t able to force that nightmare on the world once again…

Jake – who got us into Vietnam? who got us into Somalia? who couldn’t give the order to provide air support in Cuba? who crumbled when the Ayatollah took down our embassy in Tehran? who lost Berlin? who pretends that Chavez isn’t just a thug with oil money? who acted like the FSLN wasn’t just a band of marxists with guns? who has a poster of Che Guevara (one of histories most inept guerrillas) in their campaign HQs? who masters the head-in-the-sand position time and time again? the next time you see one of those Never Forget epitaphs, remember why we haven’t seen any jet liners flying into US assets since the invasion. run back to Nancy Pelosi and her band of we-are-saving-the-planet types but at least Neocons ground themselves in reality, however unpleasant and necessary it may be at times.

Oh Jake! Come on, cheer up. Might help to remember Uncle Tony’s “Universal Values of the Human Spirit”

“And then reflect on this: How hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are and are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm? ”

It’s happening!

Also, blaming neocons seems like either honest ignorance like Dr Bevin Alexander teaches in “How America Got It Right”

“Many critics of American foreign policy – both at home and abroad – assert
that the United States has overextended herself unnecessarily in other
nations affairs. Some liberal critcs even chastise the United States for
becoming an “Imperial Power.”

“These criticisms are completely off the mark. Those who worry about America’s projection of power are overlooking how America got to the position she occupies at this moment in history: the world’s dominant political and military, the only nation that will actually go into the world and strike down evil.”

Or worse – deceitful like Dr Fred Kaplan’s hooky “Daydream Decieivers: Why 911 Never Mattered and the Idiots Who Took Their Day Gigs Seriously”

Essentially Jake – in the new millennium in an age of WMD crunk caliphates, unfree and nigh unhinged regimes that cannot help but to act out against their own people and any democrazy in weapons range there is little to reccommend tolerating them.

Any plea for a return to the ammoral, immoral, corrupt cult of stability of realpolitik and containment is a very weak (retarded in the classic sense no less) game plan.

Constant confrontation and selective intervention like Great Britain’s recent “Democratic Imperatives” is far less riskier than hoping for the best.

…Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD.

And I still wouldn’t care (much). I fall into the camp of people who believed that Saddam had (some) WMD and thought it was totally irrelevant to US national security.

He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel.

Not at all clear what oil prices would have been without the Iraq war. But whatever, they probably would still have been high.

He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime.

How? Why? This makes no sense. Maybe he would have continued to smuggle out oil, but how would he have ‘broken free’ of anything? He was militarily very weak.

The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf.

Or, like, zero, if we chose not to be in the Persian Gulf in the first place. For that matter, if we wanted to play realpolitik games we could probably have reprised our strategy of the 1980s and played Iraq and Iran against each other. Further, describing Iraq (or Iran) as a ‘major’ adversary given its military and economy is silly. The USSR, Germany in WWII, Red China – those were ‘major’ adversaries. Iran and Iraq are not.

Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse.

If you only count violent deaths, the Iraqis are better off. Of course there are other metrics by which things haven’t looked so good, depending on whose excess mortality figures you believe (and how about those millions of refugees?).

And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.

Because our massive, globe-spanning military would suddenly have become invisible? What the author seems to be trying to say is that we might have appeared slightly less than omnipotent. This seems to me to be a more polite formulation of something Ledeen once wrote about the need to ‘pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business’.

Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.

These are good things (with caveats that I’m not going to go into now). I don’t approve of the enormous cost required to achieve them.

We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe.

A more trenchant criticism is that devoting more resources to al Qaeda in other locations (Afghanistan) would have been even more crippling for the organization.

As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared “central battlefield,” and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles.

Yes. One thing I wonder about: did al Qaeda lose its popularity because it was seen to lose, or did it become unpopular because of its insanely bloodthirsty tactics? Obviously the two may be related (al Qaeda resorted to more attacks on civilians because it couldn’t face American military power). Basically I’m curious whether they would still be popular in the Arab world if they only murdered Americans instead of also bombing other Muslims, even if they had still suffered the same battlefield losses.

We also have — if still only prospectively — an Arab bulwark against Iran’s encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership.

lol, more politesse. I gather the author wants us to keep 100,000 troops stationed there indefinitely, so that Maliki’s talk of friendship with Iran remains nothing more than talk. Withdrawing would probably result in Iraq becoming way too cozy with Iran for our liking. Funny how getting involved in middle eastern politics leads to these neverending commitments.

After 9/11 there was still a lot of silence in the muslim/islamic community about what had happened. There were people around the world celebrating the attack (including here). Even AFghanistan, which some proclaim to see as “acceptable” in so far as a response, did not change any hearts and minds. But, Iraq did. Because the flesh eating tiger of Islam was set loose in their own backyards. And when they saw it, when they realized what it was….they turned away from it. THAT, is what turned “Islam” against these murdering bands of thugs. THAT was when we finally started seeing people within the Islamic communities and mosques speak out against it. That’s when people started burning effigies of Osama Bin Laden instead of holding up his picture and dancing in the street—when they started killing muslims (women, children, everybody). 9/11 sympathy didn’t do that. Afghanistan didn’t do that. Initiating a front in Iraq did. You can argue the reasons why, or whether they were intended results or not, but you cannot at this point argue the outcome.

There “is” a context here…despite the best attempts to remove it by some. Iraqi’s “do” realize the difference between what we have done and what these jihadis do, and what Saddam did. Iraqi’s “do” put context into what happens every day in their lives. They don’t live in the world of made up, or argued statistics and politics…they ARE the statistics. We’ve got Karadzic up at the Hague for killing 10k people. Saddam executed an estimated 200-300 thousand people (unless you want to suggest that people in graves blindfolded with hands wired behind their back were casualties of the Iran war) and it was “ok”. 9/11 wasn’t just about a couple hundred Alqueda hard asses committing a crime. It was much bigger than that. And the history of these problems stretched far beyond Afghanistans borders (as is clearly evident even from events around the world). IRaq, was a 2nd front…in a much larger war…that began on sept 11, 2001. Some people just could not (cannot) bring themselves to acknowledge this. Pearl Harbor was one event, in a much larger war, just as Normandy or Iwo was. They were not separate wars, they were separate battles fought in the context of a war. There would be others, in other countries that “did not attack us” as well that would ultimately prove to be pivotal moments in a larger war that bring dramatic change to not only those areas involved, but into relations between people, even in how they think about each other.

I think historically, removing Saddam and the Baathist control, establishing representative gov, and the “awakening” and reconciliation whether intended, or not, will be seen as the turning point that created the catalyst for dramatic change in the ME/Gulf that will ultimately lead to a long stretch of peace and prosperity. I dont’ think the point of this opportunity is lost on the IRaqi’s themselves, as it is at hand today. Ironically, in one way, Saddams brutal control of the former British “mandate”, indiscriminately carved from multi-ethno-religious dynamite, is what has given these people the only semblance of nationalistic pride and secularism they have ever known—that they are all “Iraqi’s”, that they are different from Iranians, or others, even though they may be of the same ethnic or religious backgrounds.

Courtney, you do your younger generation of women proud, girl. Delightful to have you and your creative turn of phrase and perspective here on FA.

Kewl blog you have, as well.

bbartlog – you said: “A more trenchant criticism is that devoting more resources to al Qaeda in other locations (Afghanistan) would have been even more crippling for the organization.”

Really? Where? Neophytes only want to wage war where there is nothing to gain (i.e. a mountainous, isolated region buffered on two sides by conflagrating would-be world players). Neocons believe in waging war only where there is something at stake, something to gain and something to lose. Brilliant insight you offer – let’s airlift a dozen brigades into Kabul and mark our war on terror to the silent mountain tops for all – err, birds – to hear.

Iraq is strategic. It’s prime real estate in the Middle East and if you think not having a base of operations there to conduct the broader effort isn’t hand’s down the best strategy, then I am not quite sure your afternoon lobotomy has not preceded your twittering…..but then again, your ‘s’ in criticizm does give you away now, ole’ chap. We are after all cleaning up the mess your dear Sir Winston couldn’t quite make sense of – nearly 90 years after the British occupation of Baghdad.

Carry on , carry on now with your buckets of soon-to-be-depreciating Euros n’ Quid….Come to think of it Europe is in quite a predicament with its negative population growth and imbalanced immigration from the Middle East and Central Asia. Perhaps in the near future the Arab-Islamic uncertainty will become more palpable to our friends across the pond….

Hi Mata. Thanks for the kind words.

About Iraq though – anyone who understands how Great Satan busted out of her cocoon in 1990 – uniquely powerful – (the only one of her kind!) and knows their history and current events realises that America has a penchant for stirring things up globally since she was born and she doesn’t really have much of a prob going anywhere and doing anything to protect and project the sexyful appeals of democrazy.

Creative destruction is Great Satan’s middle name. It is a natural function, for she is the one truly revolutionary country in the world for more than 2 centuries. She does it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants and myriad intolerants hate her guts, and are driven to attack her. An enormous advantage, control freaks fear her, and oppressed peoples want what she offers: freedom.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is kinda like the Marine Corps Eagle, Globe and Anchor – a wonderful reminder to friends, frienemies and enemies that Great Satan built the modern world.

And She knows Her way around.

Yes. One thing I wonder about: did al Qaeda lose its popularity because it was seen to lose, or did it become unpopular because of its insanely bloodthirsty tactics? Obviously the two may be related (al Qaeda resorted to more attacks on civilians because it couldn’t face American military power). Basically I’m curious whether they would still be popular in the Arab world if they only murdered Americans instead of also bombing other Muslims, even if they had still suffered the same battlefield losses.

This should be obvious, bbart. Following our deposition of the Taliban as the rule in Afghanistan, the Muslim world’s support for the global jihad movement was high. Moderate Muslims still revered them as freedom fighters.

It was not until their desperate and violent warfare on fellow Muslims in Iraq – meant to start a civil war and topple the new government – that their popularity went down. i.e. 2006 on.

INRE Iraq, Iran and US troop presence. Iraq and Iran are neighbors. Many have relatives in the other country. They can, and should, have a relationship. That is acceptable unless that relationship results in fueling jihad, and supporting Iran’s quest for WMD.

As far as troop presence with 100K. You’re making things up, bbart. Scott, nor any POTUS candidate, has not advocated that kind of long term troop level. Both Obama and McCain both estimate support troop presence post withdrawal of combat troops is in the 40-60K range.

But here, you’re attributing non-existent words and intents to Scott …. not acceptable.

Neophytes only want to wage war where there is nothing to gain

Well, I’m basing my statement the escape of Bin Laden and the current requests (from those on the ground there) for more troops that will not be forthcoming for some time. But my point was not so much to advocate for a specific alternate policy as to point out that there are opportunity costs to our success against al Qaeda in Iraq, and that you can’t ignore them if you want to argue that our victories against them there are an unmitigated good.

Neocons believe in waging war only where there is something at stake

Actually, no. See the quote from Ledeen above, also commenter courtney ‘…provided cold rolled steel bona fides that Great Satan is crazy and unpredictable after 911 and sent a very cool message’ (and let’s not forget Nixon, who had similar ideas cf. his madman strategy). Neocons believe in waging war just for the sake of credibility – which I guess counts as ‘something at stake’ if you place a high value on having a reputation as an aggressive, unpredictable nation. But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying.

but then again, your ’s’ in criticizm does give you away now, ole’ chap

Try harder. Criticize vs criticise is a legitimate American/English difference, but criticism is spelled the same way on both sides of the pond – and I’m from Pittsburgh.

courtneyme109, you strike me as a fellow manichean; that there is a relationship between good and evil, a relationship that exists out of necessity and that it is unreasonable to assume they are mutually exclusive…’frienemies’ kind of grasps it all, great term.

But here, you’re attributing non-existent words and intents to Scott …. not acceptable.

Which is why I used ‘I gather’ to indicate that this was my personal interpretation of what he was saying. In any case, I admit I was being hyperbolic. Nonetheless the overall logic is the same as for the drug war or really any government program:
-if things aren’t going well, we need more money to fix the problem
-if things are going well, we need to continue spending money to protect what we’ve achieved

Actually stopping (either because of success or failure) never seems to be an option.

I propose that another benefit from our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan must be that it will be a very long time before any tin-pot nation agrees to harbor terrorist groups plotting to attack the U.S.

As far as all the negative Lefty commentary, here’s a prediction: 10 years from now a majority of people will walking around bragging about how they were all neo-cons and Bush supporters “back then”. Just like Truman and Korea.

Bbart, I agree and disagree with a lot in your post, but I think the biggest point of discussion ought to be the question of whether or not the invasion of Iraq fueled a Jihad, or if there was already a significant number of death cult fanatics seeking to kill Americans before the invasion. For that, I’d look at two things: first, Osama Bin Laden’s pre-invasion rantings (particularly those from 1996 when AQ and EIJ formally created the Islamic World Front for the Holy War against Jews and Crusaders and 3/2003 when the US invaded). In this period, all of the AQ rhetoric focused on the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia which were there to wage a blockade of Iraq, US support for Israel (the core mantra of EIJ and other AQ groups), and the US fight against Iraq from 1991-2003. Here in the west, we dismiss that as some sort of happy time when Saddam was “contained,” “not a threat,” and where the US could bomb at will without consequence. A timeline of the period shows differently. It shows that the US bombed Iraq constantly for years, the west starved and impoverished the Iraqi people killing millions according to UNICEF and others, and on 4-5 occasions the US came close to invading and removing Saddam (let’s ignore the dozens of US-sponsored rebellions, coups, assassinations, etc in that period for now). Secondly, I’d point to the 911 Commission report which tells us that Al Queda’s rantings about the US war on Iraq (directly, and indirectly by stationing forces in Saudi to wage the war) were 2/3’s of the reasons for the 911 attacks (attacks which happened years before the invasion of Iraq).

Now, opponents of the war (often the same people who exaggerate the cost in blood and treasure 10-100x what it really has been) tell us that the war in Iraq created more terrorists than there were beforehand, but we don’t know how many there were before the invasion, so that’s just more biased speculation. What we DO know, is that more Jihadis were encountered in Iraq and killed in Iraq than anywhere else in the world, and that’s not because the fight in Afghanistan somehow “stopped” (no, there’s a difference between the enemy escaping into Pakistan and “taking one’s eye off the ball”).

btw, you’re gonna want to lose the misled belief/talking point that “there was no Al Queda in Iraq until George Bush invaded Iraq.” That’s been proven false yet again. Not long ago US Special Operations Forces captured a treasure trove of Al Queda in Iraq documents. They’ve been analyzed at West Point’s Counter Terrorism center, and their findings confirm what the Iraqi Perspectives Project report, the documents captured from Saddam’s regime, captured regime members, and captured AQI members have all said: Al Queda groups were in Iraq before the invasion, and Saddam’s regime worked with them. Have you read that report yet? It’s interesting.

Fred,

Everyone in America spells criticism with an “s.” What country are you from, ole’ chap? Next time hit the ole Merriam-Webster before you engage in a long snarky”criticizm” of someone’s post that includes a pretentious spate of Euro-bashing.

“Twittering” — Oh my, you are the cheeky one, aren’t you?

Hi Fred. Am reliably informed that I’m a Straussian Purist. Specifically Strauss’ really cool quiz “Which one of these is not like the other?”

That quiz tends to point out that relativism (and realism as realpolitik too) shared a dangerously retarded “easy going belief that all points of view are equal (hence none really worth passionate argument, deep analysis or stalwart defense) and then into the strident belief that anyone who argues for the superiority of a distictive moral insight, way of life, or human type is somehow elitist or antidemocratic and hence immoral.”

In Diplopolitical speak “Frienemies’ refers to autocrazies like Commonwealth Russia and Red China – not quite open enemies and not quite Best Friends Forever either. The potential exists for swinging either way.

Dave – is this you? now i get it. big news flash, your candidate is disappearing before your very eyes each time he makes an attempt at policy. as for my ‘z’ – you got me, twice. the cheekiness is unwelcomed to say the least, however i do appreciate your feigning a response on the issues as there frankly is no base to your criticizm (sic).

Obama Announces David Noble as LGBT Vote Director
By Jamie Citron – Jun 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm EDT
Also listed in: 4 groups
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Welcome Dave!

The Obama campaign announced Wednesday that David Noble, former executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats and current director of public policy and government affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, has been appointed as director of the LGBT vote for the campaign. Noble will be stepping down from his position at NGLTF and officially starting with the campaign on June 21.

As the campaign switches gears to the general election, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said, “We have moved aggressively to set up our national LGBT vote operation and to staff it with the best people we can possibly get.” Hildebrand, who is openly gay, called Noble a “well-seasoned” political operative.

“He is experienced at many levels, he is a passionate advocate for the LGBT community across the country, and he will be an important voice for Barack Obama in this critical election,” Hildebrand said during a 20-minute conference call with reporters. “We know there is a tremendous difference between the positions held by John McCain as the Republican nominee and Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee, and Dave will be the voice and the organizer behind making sure that voters all across the country know the difference between the records and the positions of these two candidates for the presidency.”

Acknowledging that he had a lot of work do with just under five months between now and the general election, Noble said he was “thrilled” to join the Obama team and had “really been proud to watch [Sen. Obama] speak about LGBT issues on the stump, not just to LGBT audiences but to everyone as he’s been campaigning.”

Noble, who has a history of coalition building in the gay community, said the fact that the campaign reached out to him was just one sign of how serious they are about making sure that LGBT people not only have the information they need to make an informed decision come November but also have ways to get involved. “No matter how they are organized now at their grassroots level, they’re going to have access to the campaign,” said Noble.

Asked whether Noble would be focusing his LGBT outreach efforts more on red states or blue states, Hildebrand noted that just eight weeks ago the campaign had launched a 50-state voter registration drive.

“Dave will be helping design those programs to be specifically reaching out to gay voters and asking them to increase their participation in politics, whether that means getting them registered to vote or ensuring that they do vote in November, whether they’re voting for Barack Obama — which would obviously be our hope — or John McCain or one of the other third-party candidates,” said Hildebrand. “The bottom line is, within Barack’s heart, he believes that our democracy will be stronger if more people participate in politics and voting.” (Kerry Eleveld, The Advocate)

Fred,

I didn’t discuss any issues in my post. My criticism was directed at your post and your attitude and I thought it was right on point in that regard.

As far as the similarity in names, that’s been asked before here on this blog. I’d be glad to be that David Noble. It just happens that I’m not. Let’s see, you used a purported British spelling on bbart’s post as an excuse to rant about Europe and now you use the similarity of my name to someone else’s to talk about how Barrack Obama’s campaign is in trouble. Are you that hard up for a seque?

“[h]e (Barrack Obama) believes that our democracy will be stronger if more people participate in politics and voting.” I agree.

Jake #17 wrote:

I take it we won Vietnam also.

Are you implying that we lost Iraq?

Exactly how did we lose Vietnam, Jake?

Here’s something Alexander Solzhenitsyn had to say on the topic of Vietnam:

The most cruel mistake occurred with the failure to understand the Vietnam war. Some people sincerely wanted all wars to stop just as soon as possible; others believed that there should be room for national, or communist, self-determination in Vietnam, or in Cambodia, as we see today with particular clarity. But members of the U.S. anti-war movement wound up being involved in the betrayal of Far Eastern nations, in a genocide and in the suffering today imposed on 30 million people there. Do those convinced pacifists hear the moans coming from there? Do they understand their responsibility today? Or do they prefer not to hear?

Jake also writes:

This post is meaningless. The answer to your question is nothing has been gained from this war.

How do you know this, when the ripples haven’t had time to affect the course and shape of history, yet?

Do you know for a fact, if Saddam were still in power, that the world and Iraq would be a better place today? Tomorrow?

People like you want to justify it by the measure of dead and wounded soldiers.

I thought that was your side, that want to use body count and war cost as a measuring rod for justifying failure and surrender.

Your side was wailing from the get go, “Run away! Run away!” when the body count of U.S. soldiers was at 100. Because you don’t agree with THIS war, no magic statistical number would have been an acceptable figure for you.

Iraq is not a democracy a won’t be one for a very long time, and if it ever becomes one it will not be because of us.

It’s a process, Jake. One that doesn’t happen overnight; nor do we hold all the cards to all the variables that will happen from now into eternity in shaping Iraq’s future. But if Iraq does become a successful democracy, those who have fought, bled, and sacrificed for it do deserve credit for beginning those first steps toward democracy.

Shame on you and all people that subscribe to this neocon policy.

Shame on the anti-war movement that protests against those defending innocent Iraqis rather than demonstrate against dictators and terrorists.

bbartlog wrote:Or, like, zero, if we chose not to be in the Persian Gulf in the first place. bbartlog, do you think America should intervene anywhere in the world, militarily? Should we withdraw all of our bases from around the world and all of our military deployments happening all across the globe?

describing Iraq (or Iran) as a ‘major’ adversary given its military and economy is silly. The USSR, Germany in WWII, Red China – those were ‘major’ adversaries. Iran and Iraq are not.

Has NK been a “major adversary”, in terms of posing a threat to global peace and security?

The threat of Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t about fear of his armies invading our shores.

(and how about those millions of refugees?).

Yesterday’s news, bbartlog. Are they still fleeing Iraq by the droves, or are they returning back?

Word, Vietnam was not won or lost. The United States merely “re-deployed”

“[h]e (Barrack Obama) believes that our democracy will be stronger if more people participate in politics and voting.” I agree.

I’d feel alot more comfort in that “stronger democracy” if more were educated prior to pulling the dang lever. THe 2004 Boston Globe article, The ignorant American voter”, is probably just as applicable today.

According to polls taken this year, nearly 65 percent of the public doesn’t know that Congress has banned partial-birth abortion. Seventy percent is unaware that a massive drug benefit has been added to Medicare. At least 58 percent say they have heard “nothing” or “not much” about the Patriot Act, notwithstanding the enormous amount of coverage the controversial law has drawn.

This is not a new problem. As Cold War tensions bristled in 1964, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 1970, only 24 percent could identify the secretary of state. In 1996, The Washington Post reported that 67 percent of Americans couldn’t name their congressman and 94 percent had no idea that William Rehnquist was the chief justice of the United States. Only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms, and 73 percent didn’t know that Medicare costs more than foreign aid.

Gallup found in January 2000 that while 66 percent of the public could name the host of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” only 6 percent knew the name of the speaker of the House. Last year, a Polling Company survey found that 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.

The article was based on this Cato Institute study, When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy, by Ilya Somin.

Agree with the concept of a “stronger Democracy” just by sheer numbers of votes, if you like, Dave Noble. But frankly I think an uneducated vote does far more damage than not voting at all.

Kemmet Aziz…

…is either a propagandist, or just some poor schmuck who’s had his head stuffed so full of Islamist excrement that he doesn’t know any better, but either way he is wrong about everything, dead wrong!

He, like the typical American Leftist, completely misunderstands the reasons we went to war, and against whom we are fighting there.

As to the success of the war, consider that if all we did was shut down Saddam’s WMD technology market place, that alone would be cause for celebration. But we did more, by freeing the Iraqis from an evil tyrant, and by killing so very many of Al Qaeda’s most valuable fighters.

All in all it’s been a victory so far. It’s not over, but more success should follow if O’Bummer is not elected. If he is, then we can expect the situation to deteriorate not only there, but everywhere.

Fred said, “…i do appreciate your [Dave Noble’s] feigning a response on the issues as there frankly is no base to your criticizm (sic).

There never is Fred. There never is.

Yon,

I wil step over your snark to address the misunderstanding you express in the post above.

“by killing so very many of Al Qaeda’s most valuable fighters.”

Two problems with that: First, there are not a fixed number of AQ fighters. They are continually replaced through recruiting (aided by an American invasion of a Muslim country). Further, the battlefield is a Darwinian environment where the less vauable fighters are weeded out and the best fighters survive. Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 80’s, is an ideal training camp for jihadists.

Oh Dave, whether Iraq was invaded or not…Al Queda was still recruiting tens of thousands before the invasion. The latest news is that AQ’s having a tougher time getting recruits for suicide bombings so they’ve had to focus on using children, women, even mentally challenged, and finally…they’ve resorted to tricking recruits into suicide bombings (which, really isn’t a suicide bombing per say, but how else would one describe sending unwitting volunteers to carry explosives into target areas, then having the commander detonate them without the courier’s knowledge?)

Also, I disagree that the best fighters survive. Most of Al Queda’s tactics and effectiveness has been through suicide bombings, and…well, the best suicide bombers don’t survive. They die. They commit suicide.

Dave Noble

You display a lack of understanding of the flow. The ‘foreign fighters’ who have been captured continually describe a pattern where they are used as suicide bombers, even being drugged to accomplish their missions. The foreign fighters also describe being indoctrinated by clerics in their home country to go join the jihad, wherever it might be. At the very heart of this drive is the meme that dying while in jihad assures a quick trip to paradise. Telling susceptible young Arabs this meme is necessary to perpetuate the jihad myth. Whether Arab land is being occupied or attacked, the recruitment goes on. Examine the Mahdi army under Muqtadr al Sadr, he uses the jihad/paradise meme, as does every cleric from Qom to Cairo. It is like the sacrament of Islam. Every cleric who sends a jihadi to death believes that it somehow enhances his prestige or power, especially since that is what he tells the families of the fallen jihadis.

You may or may not be aware that the vast majority of Muslims killed anywhere, not just Iraq or Afghanistan, are killed by fellow Muslims. They were killed in pursuit of the personal interpretation of jihad assumed by their murderers. It is far easier and safer to kill unarmed fellow Arabs than it is to stand up to an armed and trained military force. Even without the presence of the military force the killing goes on, throughout the Muslims world, and especially on the fringes of the Muslim world.

There is nothing Darwinian about the battle field. Not the current Islamic jihad battlefield or any other in history. More likely it is blind luck, circumstance, stupidity, random chance, and clever intelligence maybe; but Darwinian, not a chance. Darwin works much slower and more deliberately.

Finally, I don’t think you quite understand that jihadis are intent on dying for Islam. It is their goal and their opportunity for paradise. You can try to explain it a thousand ways, but it always gets reduced to the nihilist bent in Islam. The only encouragement to be gained from any of that is that no suicidal army has ever prevailed. The numbers just are not slanted that way.

Now a bit of snark on my part. If you took a vast population of people who traditionally marry first and second cousins you will end up with a certain subset of that population who have the usual mental defects. Taking advantage of someone with particular mental defects to convince them to commit suicide in pursuit of your particular power play is probably the lowest act a person can commit. Yet it is apparently being plied on a daily basis in the Islamic world. I consider that the most damning of the attributes of the Muslim clerics who send jihadis to battle.

I still say the “best” suicide bombers…do NOT survive “battle.” They commit suicide.

Moody,

You overgeneralize the suicide bomber to make him the paradigmatic jihadist. That is a misrepresentation. Suicide bombers do not attack convoys, plant IEDs and EFPs, or set up ambushes.

Assuming for the sake of argument that all the jihadists in Iraq were suicide bombers, AQ can always find new recruits by the methods you describe. Finally, I was responding to Yon who spoke of killing valuable AQ fighters. You don’t have to kill a suicide bomber, as Scott points out, they kill themselves. And they are not valuable – they are cannon fodder. The valuable AQ fighters, and their numbers are not negligible, are the battle-hardened veterans of Iraq. Again, the same thing happened in Afghanistan during the insurgency against the Soviets.

Tell our troops that survival on the battlefield is a largely a matter of blind luck, circumstance, stupidity and random chance and see what reaction you get. That argument, if it were anything more than a partial explanation of survival on the battlefield, would obviate the efficacy of training. To the extent survival is a function of stupidity or clever intelligence, you make my point. The intelligent jihadi combatant learns and lives to fight again. The stupid jihadi combatant dies. Further, you deliberately misinterpret my use of the term “Darwinian.” I simply meant survival of the fittest through the learning that occurs on the battlefield, not the slow course of biological evolution based on chance mutation.

From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html:

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the *National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.*

Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”

Scott,

You piggyback on Moody and make the same mistake.

Scott;

I was drawing to the slim difference between AQ and the jihadis that go where ever the fighting is. The fighters of AQ see their long term goal as implementing an Islamic shiri’a society, stepping on any available stone to get there. These are two levels of the same mahdi army. AQ has been around a while and they take the jihadis from everywhere else and set them about to be suicide bombers. The long term AQ fighters have several weaknesses of their own, like believing their own PR. Eventually they will be betrayed by one or another of their habits. (Stupid jihadi Zawahiri had a cleric spiritual advisor, he followed a pattern, he got killed.) The people AQ recruit and pay to plant IEDS or EFPs are often the victims they are paid to be. If the people who plant them are not caught, they will do it again, usually for money rather than jihad. Again, back to the AQ fighters. These are politically motivated people who despite any pretense to religious virtue are in it for power, pure and unbridled.

Your point was that Iraq was spawning these people. I disagree, they came from anywhere and everywhere at the behest of their local clerics, to became fodder for the AQ jihadi in pursuit of political power for AQ. They also occur in just about every Islamic society because they are also the political power fodder of the local clerics. Islam is built to foster these bastard spawn, and has done so for 1400 years. It is pure rhetoric to believe that Iraq has changed much on that count. Besides that, it doesn’t seem to have an empirical proof because it is impossible to separate the sources of jihadis cleanly nor verify the statements of people who know truth as a fleeting moment.

My comments about battle and dying are drawn from personal experience and from observation. You can mitigate a lot of things but when it comes down to it, not every shot goes where it was aimed, not every bomb is well aimed, not every commander a genius. Reflexes will help to some extent, training changes the stats. And you can eventually learn quite a few tricks to mitigate the risk, but far too often it is just simple blind luck. A well placed Ipod, a mud brick falling, a rocket dud, all luck, well trained soldier or not.

Dave,

Moody makes a good point in calling you on the “Darwinian” comment. Luck does factor in a great deal. Of course, you make a valid point as well, in talking about training and battle-hardened experience as means to surviving war.

But unlike, say, a prize fight or MMA competition, the fittest, savviest, and most well-seasoned soldier can still be killed just as easily as the next guy. The variables in real life as opposed to a squared circle or the Octagon where rules and a referee apply,are so vast, anything can happen; and even the best warrior can be “sucker-punched” by a well-hidden sniper. All the best hand-to-hand combat training, marksmanship, and special ops skills isn’t going to save an al Qaeda fighter targeted by a Predator’s hellfire missile if he happens to be sitting in a truck at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

al Qaeda Footsoldiers are a dime-a-dozen. But what is harder to replace is when their leadership is killed or captured- and that’s been happening a lot in the GWOT.

The intelligent jihadi combatant learns and lives to fight again. The stupid jihadi combatant dies.

Don’t the “true” jihadis seek martyrdom? I recall from Lawrence Wright, a reporter or someone asking some mujahadeen who came to Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia, why they were camping out in the open, under white tents (something to that effect). They were told that they were easy, open targets for the Soviets. The “holy” warriors responded that they came to Afghanistan to die. Now, one could say they were stupid “combatants”; but were they not fulfilling themselves as “good jihadi”?

Dave, you can cite the WaPo all you want. I personally spoke w the head of counter-terrorism operations over there two weeks ago. Al Queda in Iraq is dying off fast, and they can’t get the recruits they want.

The fact remains…911 and AQ’s 5 preceeding declarations of war on the US happened BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, and 2/3’s of the reasons AQ gave was the US fight on Iraq between 91 and 01 and the presence of US forces in Saudi who were there to wage the fight against Iraq between 91 and 01.

There is an intrinsic problem to using suicide bombings as the primary means of attack, and that problem is you run low on ammo (ie suicide bombers) as it’s not a very inviting job.

THEY NEVER LEARN!

“by killing so very many of Al Qaeda’s most valuable fighters.” […and plenty of regulars, as well]

“Two problems with that: First, there are not a fixed number of AQ fighters. They are continually replaced through recruiting (aided by an American invasion of a Muslim country). Further, the battlefield is a Darwinian environment where the less vauable fighters are weeded out and the best fighters survive. Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 80’s, is an ideal training camp for jihadists.” — Dave The Ignoble

(1) – “there are not a fixed number of AQ fighters.”
RIGHT! There are 6,000 fewer now in Iraq alone, since the war began.

(2a) – “They are continually replaced through recruiting ( . . . .)”
they always were, DUH! And, we’ve done a little “recruiting” ourselves.

(2b) – ” . . . . . (aided by an American invasion of a Muslim country)
but Al Qaeda is not replaced in THAT Muslim country [Iraq], because they [Iraqis now] KNOW better.”

(3) – ” the battlefield is a Darwinian environment where the less vauable fighters are weeded out and the best fighters survive.
Tell it to AL-ZARQAWI).” There’s nothing “Darwinian” about the loss of high value targets with no one to replace them but cadets. Besides DARWIN GOT IT WRONG! Perhaps you never got the memo?

Do you want to know what your problem is, Dave? Well, I’m gonna tell ya anyway, because you owe me for wasting my time answering your stupid drivel. You haven’t a clue what your problem is, nor have you any interest in knowing because even if you did know, you wouldn’t want to fix it. That, and you are a malicious idiot.

EVERYTNHING THEY KNOW IS WRONG, AND THEY LOVE IT

They take pride in rolling around in their mental fecal material, like pigs in a sty. In fact, that’s the root of the problem with them and their pathological interaction with society. Instead of contributing, they only take, and not only that but they enjoy getting in the way of those who are productive, kind of a low-grade anti-social personality disorder.

Answering them so they will learn is a waste of time. The only reason to expose them is because otherwise they might mislead the naive into believing they are right. Otherwise, answering them is just a huge waste of time.

If Iraq is the new training ground of AQ jihadists, then what they are learning, and what they have trained for, and what they have gained experience in is how to be utterly defeated and retreat in the face of a humiliating loss.

They have also learned that we are committed to their utter defeat, even in the face of heavy cost (or at least until the next democratic administration when they can get a reprieve). They have also learned that, unlike the past, we won’t run in the face of brutality or casualties. Used to, you kill a couple of Americans and they would withdraw.

Beyond that, what exactly have new AQ recruits actually learned? How to use a powerdrill on muslim women and children? How to cut off heads and arms of their fellow muslims? How to run and hide? I mean really…

Any of them that will actually stand and fight….are meat jello.