It should have been obvious to everyone that the invasion of Iraq would help Al Qaeda itself, and any other groups devoted to terrorism against the US, to recruit new members.

It should be obvious by now that the longer the US military occupies Iraq the more recruits to existing terrorist groups, as well as the creation of new groups, we will see.

But apart from terrorists or would-be terrorists, does anyone consider the dramatic increase of people, and not just Muslims, who will never again trust, admire or support the United States?

This could last several generations.

Why doesn't anyone, except for a few bloggers, care about this?

If that was so then the Russians should have had all sorts of trouble with Chechen rebels.

Why do you hate America?

Christ alive! Get way from this idea that you can fight terrorism like WWII.

This guy has gained currency because he put out that al-Qaeda was/is training by internet. What a load of conveniently adopted, ignorant crap.

Like the 11th September bombers didn't go to flying schools. Or, sure, they can expand more rapidly by using the internet. But don't simplify the problem.

There are domestic and foeign fighters in Iraq, learning on the ground, day by day. Others that served their time and returned to Hamas or Hizbullah, or any other resistant group, bringing knowledge and experience. They've been going through there for 3-4+ years.

Eventually??!! There overall level of skill is already higher. We probably have to worry most about their highest trained.

Wow! Are the "itelligentsia" so way behind this curve. Like the military. As everything else to do with "asymmetric" warfare. Like it's some new idea. It blows my mind.

Education sems to breed ignorance.

Oh, and for anyone who hasn't noticed, al-Qaeda has got more powerful from the day we invaded and never looked back.

Anyone been taking any notice?

Is there any definition of winning that's currently in vogue?

We hear "we have to stay till we win" or "to get the job done" all the time, but it's been an awful long time since I've heard ANYONE define either "win" or "the goal" in Iraq.

It's not at all clear that we have any goals there, anymore.

This is what pisses me off about Bin Laden.

Without us, he was a nobody. We build him up with a heroic chase and escape in Afghanistan. We give him everything he wants, we leave Saudi Arabia, we give him a new mission, messages for recruiting new members, we destroy his crappy training center and create an entire country for him to train in, and does he thank us?

No, he just keeps denouncing us and trying to kill us. What a fucking ingrate.

Shaken and stirred in Afghanistan.

B: "If that was so then the Russians should have had all sorts of trouble with Chechen rebels."

Oh, for crying out loud! Have you been living under a friggin' rock the last 15 years, B?

The Russian Army literally was forced to retreat from Chechnya with its collective tail between its legs back in 1996, having had been besieged in the capital city of Groznyy by Chechen rebels for the better part of a year, and suffering heavy losses in the process.

The latest attempt by Pres. Vladimir Putin, beginning in 1999, to pacify the region has really not been much more successful, and the Russians' heavy-handed occupation -- not to mention the near-destruction of Groznyy during their 1999 invasion -- has probably incurred the ill will of Chechens for several generations to come.

B is probably forgetting the hundred-odd people killed in that theatre in Moscow after being taken hostage by Chechen terrorists or the schoolchildren (the entire school, as I recall) that were taken hostage, again by Chechen terrorsits, and mostly slaughtered. That counts as "all sorts of trouble" in my book.

I think Mr (or Ms) B was being ironic.

Cheney sent our best delta force unit w/ arabic speakers to Iraq. Was Congress briefed when they did it? If Dems were briefed and did nothing, they deserve a big whooping.

The only outstanding question is:

Is OBL working for GWB, or is GWB working for OBL?

Well, it's 1-2-3
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
Next stop will be Iran.
And it's 5-6-7
Open up the pearly gates
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! We're all gonna die.

Does this strike you are a "serious" comment on the Iraqi War:

"But it's not a 20% chance of winning versus a downside of zero. There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get.Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously."

Sorry, but Kevin makes no serious effort, and seems incapable of any serious analysis, of the effect on al Qaeda of us getting out versus us staying in Iraq.

Fuck the scary monster al Qaida! Ooga booga booga!

The longer we occupy Iraq the more of them we kill, and the more of us they kill. There is no upside to this venture. We need to cut our losses and move on.

There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get. Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously.

—Kevin Drum

But HRC says we're safer now.

Does that mean that, even though al-Qaeda is getting stronger, we're getting stronger faster? How does that work? How and where are we getting stronger faster?

And how does all that it fit in with HRC's claim that we won't be able to leave anytime soon? And her claim that Maliki is the problem?

Wait, I think I have it now. Even though al-Qaeda is getting stronger, we're getting stronger faster, so the longer we stay, the stronger we get, relative to a stronger al-Qaeda. And, if we have to replace Maliki, and have to stay even longer, we'll be MUCH stronger -- maybe even FASTER.

So, anything that makes al-Qaeda stronger makes us safer, right?

We. Have. No. Chance. In. 2008.

re. brian and FP: brian, one thing I've learned is that when it comes to judging what is serious or what is not serious, you are completely unserious and thus unfailingly treat the unserious as serious and the serious as unserious.

May I once again suggest that you take some time to learn a foreign language or two, spend a dozen or so years living outside of the States and then come back to impart your grand judgement of what is or is not serious. You seem to need this as you have a serious inability to step outside of your frame and appear to be the type that needs the hard knocks school of learning for information to make serious inroads... Until that time your judgement is seriously so narrow as to be imho close to worthless, indeed, outright unserious and even worse than mine!

Sincerely,

Good post about al-Qaeda, although the numbers are still too high. At the time of 9-11, most knowledgeable counter-terrorist experts, put the number of "true" al-Qaeda operatives at a few hundred. Now, if you include all radical Muslim extremists under this broad umbrella called "al-Qaeda", there are probably many thousands more, and Iraq is teaching those extremists real fighting and explosives-making skills.

On a slightly different note, if you aren’t truly pissed about the way the war in Iraq has been outsourced and mercenaries and contractors have ripped off the American taxpayer blind, then read this article and you will be. It is a must read!

A new generation of jihadists has indeed accompanied George and Dick's tragic adventure. Today the cable news showed footage of hundreds of boys in the midst of US military engagements.
A state department report last summer revealed that 9 of 10 Shia and Sunni Iraqi youth saw the US as an occupying power. Statistically, half the Iraqi population is under age 18, many have deceased fathers as a result of the conflict/violence-- families decimated, lives ruined, things changed forever, neighborhood bonds ended, normalcy gone, they've become radicalized.

And a 2/06 published study revealed over 90% of kids there had signs of learning impediments.
The study was completed by Association of Psychologists in Iraq.

Think of the traumatic events they have witnessed since the invasion, occupation,
sectarian strife, lawlessness, ineffective government, and continual conflict.
As fathers, do George and Dick ever consider these issues as they seek "victory" in Iraq.

It's Monday, a good time for wishful thinking.

I wish:

1) That we would (mostly) get out of Iraq in the middle of next year, leaving a Shi'ite-dominated coalition that relies on US military aid. They get to say they got us to leave; we get a check on what they do cuz we give 'em something they don't want to lose.

2) That the principal cooperation between Sunni factions and the Shi'ite coalition is hunting down foreign fighters in Iraq.

3) That nobody messes with the Kurds, with whom we retain an independent relationship.

4) That we FINALLY get friggin' lucky, and somebody turns in bin Laden. (I mean, we're the richest country on earth, we have this bazillion dollar high tech defense establishment and intelligence assets all over the world -- why CAN'T we get somebody to tell us when OBL is going to be visiting which outhouse?) I'd rather him snatched than killed -- and what the hell, let's put him on trial in NYC. And, oh, why not: I hope the American guy who gets him turns out to be a lethal gay linguist who doubled his salary as a consultant when they threw him out of the Army cuz he loves men, and that he goes on the talk show circuit and tells Oprah that he thinks Bill Clinton has a nice ass. Finally, I wish

5)That Democrats and progressives would talk intelligently and patriotically about Islam and our hard choices in Iraq. Our four or five main talking points always seem to include at least three that are all about the past -- Bush lied, etc.

All true, but not helpful: it's what we do NOW, and for that, waaaay too many of us are much more interested in dissing America than deciding what we do next (except "getoutgetoutgetout!!!!", which is even more wishful thinking than these five Notions.)

It's all part of the neocon plan: more terrorists --> more terror --> more power for the neocons --> more goodies for the neocons and their buddies. So "we" are already winning, by losing.

Bush is the best thing that ever happened to Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the best thing that happened to Bush.

Investigate Bush for support of terrorist organizations.

Why?

A minor groups of three thousand now is a major force of 70,000 (per GWB count). Sounds like a success on the part of the terrorist.

The US military?

A training tool, cynically used by GWB as a "red team", for the terrorists to train with.

The schedule?

As long as it takes.

The war on other people who don't like us because we're big bullies.

It's all part of the neocon plan: more terrorists --> more terror --> more power for the neocons --> more goodies for the neocons and their buddies. So "we" are already winning, by losing.

Posted by: calling all toasters

Exactly. The real problem, however, arises when this is one of the coordinates being "triangulated" by dem candidates. Triangulation doesn't work when one of the arguments is absolute and preposterously incorrect.

That is, you can't find a reasonable position "above and between" it and the position that the war is the biggest strategic and moral failure of our lifetime.

Triangulation then produces nonsense.

Breaking news: Alberto Gonzales has finally resigned.

Alberto Gonzales has finally resigned.

Bring on the cross-eyed ex-Cheney aide: "Damn you partisan democrats!!" he says shaking his fist. "Have you no shame? Destroying a man's life for cheap political points?".

Pleased to hear the renewal of the criticism of the attorney general and the corruption within the white house and department of justice, the relationships with Karl Rove, the stonewalling, lying and lack of cooperation with Congress.

Of course cronyism will follow, toast, unless you personally are burnishing up your resume!!

Like I been saying for years:

"Mission Accomplished"

Osama bin Laden

I find it charming how you continue to act like destabilzing the Middle East and creating unending war was not the goal from the onset.

Well, this shows that on the job training can trump on line degrees. Geez, they are getting more sophisticated than sitting up nights at their version of a Phoenix University, hmmm, rising from the ashes as it were. Thank you Shrub for providing more live continuing education courses for the enemy.

Many do not realize the time it takes to get a law practice into high gear - Gonzo must be ready for those DUI and jury duty cases from Crawford.

Irony alert: brian, everyone's favorite faux-reasonable Bush Cultist concern troll, wrote that Kevin "seems incapable of any serious analysis."

brian, it's no use pretending that the GOP's decades-long branding effort as the party that's strong on defense is good any more. The President you support and his cabal of neocon fools have ruined it for good.

What Kevin Drum doesn't understand, because he's to old, naive or senile, is that they don't care. The elite in this country KNOW that Al Queada is only going to get stronger by staying in Iraq, but stuffing their campaign contributors pockets with more of our money is too important to them. They accept terrorism, and the lives of Americans that ti will destroy, as the consequence of their corrupt business practices. So long as other peoples children die, they don't care. So long as it's only normal Americans who die from terrorism, they just don't care.

there is no saudi agenda

Soullite--that's harsh about Kevin. Especially if your soul is really is light.
Seems points can be made without personal attacks.

As the departed Helmsley would say, "Only the little people have to die young, and/or pay taxes".

There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get. Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously.

Isn't there also a 100% chance that al-Queda gets stronger when they're able to run training bases in the anarchic circumstances of the mess we'll leave behind when we withdraw from Iraq -- just as they were able to run training bases in Afghanistan in the years after the Soviet withdrawal?

Don't get me wrong. I think the US invasion of Iraq was an enormous mistake. But one of the reasons it was such a big mistake is that, whether or not we stay there or leave now, al-Qaeda gets stronger.

There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get. Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously.

Whatever comes of civil war between Sunnis and Shia and Christians and Kurds in Iraq, the fact (fact!) that the Iraqi Sunnis have previously joined with and yet now rejected Al Qaeda has to be recognized as a huge defeat for Al Qaeda. So in short, it is not that simple.

It's Monday, a good time for wishful thinking.

I thought every day was a day for wishful thinking with you Americanist.

A bit off topic, but I found this in the Newsweek article:

Within days after 9/11, President Bush was vowing to capture bin Laden "dead or alive," and Cofer Black, the CIA's counterterror chief at the time, was ordering his troops to bring back bin Laden's head "in a box." (In fact, CIA operatives in Afghanistan requested a box and dry ice, just in case.)

Isn't there also a 100% chance that al-Queda gets stronger when they're able to run training bases in the anarchic circumstances of the mess we'll leave behind when we withdraw from Iraq -- just as they were able to run training bases in Afghanistan in the years after the Soviet withdrawal?

An under-analysed aspect of the Iraq War is that by attacking Iraq and turning it into a terrorist training camp we ourselves gave bin Laden and al Qaeda a foothold in the heart of the Muslim world. Before our invasion al Qaeda could only operate in strength on the outskirts and fringes of the Muslim world, in backwards places such as Sudan and Afghanistan (where they stood out even more as Arabs in a non-Arab land).

Iraq, by contrast, is one of the key cultural, geographic, and historical centers of the Arab Muslim world. By creating the conditions for al Qaeda to operate there we've allowed them to take root in the very heart of the region, a development which, to put it mildly, is going to fuck us for a very long time.

The administration's flawed policies and strategies have had seismic implications.
Worst. President. Ever.
The global implications are clearly evident.
I guess when the 'geniuses' were coming up with the project for a new american century papers back in '92--Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, Libby, and others--they didn't have a sense that 'the next smoking gun would be the mushroom cloud' of anti-american sentiment and jihadism.
Or they didn't care.

And Gonzales just called himself a victim of political sentiment.

Will these people EVER take responsiblity?

Mike, are you clueless, or just a troll?

Al Queada won't last if we leave. Both sides in the civil war hate them, they just hate us a lot more. So they tolerate them as allies in the fight against a more powerful ally. The longer we stay there, the stronger those ties will become and the less likely the Iraqi's will throw them out when we do leave. Our being there just gives Al Queda a chance at legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi's.

Consider, Kevin Drum has been playing this game for too long. He doesn't have the credibility with me to make me believe that he's truly this clueless. He gets taken in by this shit ALL THE TIME. He backed the war. He proclaims the Dems suck on national security. He tut-tuts about anyone to the left of himself constantly. He STILL fetishizes the so-called 'washington consesus'.

At some point he's either a complete fucking moron on he's an elitist hack who doesn't see the truth because he doesn't want to. Your cries for civility just sounds like BS squeals from someone who doesn't like that Kevin Drum is getting called on this shit. But he's a useful idiot, and I'm really starting to wonder if he doesn't know that.

In Ancient Greece, the Spartans would seldom fight with the same army.
The Spartans argued that such fighting trained their adversaries, more equalized the two sides skills, so increased the likelihood of a Spartan defeat.
Such defeat came in 371 BC after Sparta, over several years, battled Thebes one too many times.
Kagan, an eminent Ancient Greek historian and neoconservative strongly supporting Bush, must lament this Greek lesson forboding consequences from battles with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

Engagement with al Qaeda provides mutual training,
both for al Qaeda and for the U.S. This better trains each against others. Optimistically, you'd say we get mutual benefit. Although, since the U.S. is more formdidable, al Qaeda gains more.

U.S. wishes need to meet a predictive reality.
It needs to ask not what it learned from moral fairy tales, but the likelihoods of its actions in a varied world.

Al Queada won't last if we leave. Both sides in the civil war hate them, they just hate us a lot more. So they tolerate them as allies in the fight against a more powerful ally.

Again, in the Anbar province Al Qaeda has been rejected by SUNNIS, i.e., their own. In Baquba the same thing has occurred, Sunnis have rejected Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has managed to alienate the one group in Iraq who they could depend on for open support.

Maybe they will kiss and make up later, but any analysis of what Al Qaeda is up to in Iraq needs to fold in these facts. Think the rest of the Muslim world hasn't noticed how Al Qaeda mostly kills fellow Muslims?

Who is the US Fighting in Iraq?

Al Qaeda in Iraq are a very tiny group of Salafi fundamentalist Sunnis. The Baathists and many tribal elements are quite ideologically opposed to them and have rejected their anti-modern fundamentalism for over a century now. There is no new ideological or political alignment. All groups in Iraq reject the American occupation, and American will in Iraq, but not the destruction of Hussein's regime. These al Qaeda have nothing to with the bin Laden's group other than their fundamentalism and the influence that Saudi Wahhabism has on the rest of the revivalism movement. The US supports with arms and other kinds of assistance the two great centers of fundamentalism in the Middle East- Egypt and Saudi Arabia (both promise to keep the fundamentalists under control, although many elements in Saudi Arabia support fundamentalist causes).

The largest insurgent group by far in Iraq is the non-Salafi Sunnis. The second largest group is the the Salafi Takfiris who do not think Shiites are Muslims.

All this getting al Qaeda stuff is about the conservative narrative- a wild propaganda distortion- that the invasion of Iraq is about getting the 9/11 gang. (Of course, that is not how it was sold five years ago) There is no reality in it. It is for the great unwashed and stupid politicians. Any discussion of al Qaeda in the context of Iraq is propaganda.

Think the rest of the Muslim world hasn't noticed how Al Qaeda mostly kills fellow Muslims?

Actually, it's more accurate to say "Think the rest of the Sunni Muslim world hasn't noticed how Al Qaeda mostly kills Shia Muslims, whom the Sunnis hate?" This is not exactly a demerit for them.....

So much certainty. So little knowledge. At least no one seems to be saying Kevin has a basis for his percentage assessments.

Kevin, of course, makes no attempt to assess what happens to al Qaeda if we leave. He, nor pretty much anyone else, makes any attempt to try to assess where al Qaeda would be strength wise if we had not liberated Iraq from Hussein. To me, the most immportant factors are what we know, not guesswork about the future or hindsight about the past: (1) al Qaeda documents indicate that an important part of their strategy involves defeating America in Iraq; and (2) al Qaeda currently is in Iraq where Americans and Muslems (including Sunnis) are allied against them. Shouldn't the analysis start with that?

theAmericanist at 7:19 AM:
....That Democrats and progressives would talk intelligently and patriotically about Islam and our hard choices in Iraq.....
There has been zero attempt at dealing seriously with the modern world of Islam and Iraq by RepubliContarians. They have nothing to offer except the usual whines. One of the first ways to deal with problems is to understand the past mistakes. Your Bush offers a plenitude of examples.

...it's what we do NOW... which is even more wishful thinking...
The first thing to do is to end bad policies and counterproductive actions, although the stark simplicity of such a basic fact may be beyond you.

Isn't there also a 100% chance that al-Queda... Mike abroad at 10:28 AM

...To me, the most immportant factors are what we know...brian at 12:33 PM

brian, Kevin pulled 20% out of his ass, the same place you and the rest of the goon squad got the notion that Iraq was a threat to our national security.

Speaking of goons, I see our favorite one is back. I wonder if the Muslims around the world will also take note of Christians slaughtering Muslims and ignoring the responsibility for keeping order in conquered nations. But I guess as a swaggering jingoistic goon all you care about is that you and your like get to drop bombs from the safety of your airplanes on people without much regard for how many innocents are killed. Even a two to one ratio of innocents isn't too high for you - is it?

Actually, it's more accurate to say "Think the rest of the Sunni Muslim world hasn't noticed how Al Qaeda mostly kills Shia Muslims, whom the Sunnis hate?" This is not exactly a demerit for them.....
Posted by: Stefan

In Baghdad, yes. But in Anbar Al Qaeda was killing people left and right as they attempted to impose their fundamentalism on the locals, and the locals in Anbar are Sunnis. And it was Sunnis they were killing. It was Sunnis that have rejected them. It is Sunni Sheiks that they are hunting down for siding (however temporarily) with the infidel US.

The same thing happened in Baquba, which while it had Shia, was still mostly Sunni. Again, Sunnis have rejected them.

Al Qaeda can never take us on directly in combat, that is a given. For them, the real battle has always been for hearts and minds. The idea that fellow Sunnis of any sort are rejecting them has to be a setback in the bigger campaign.

So when someone drops a bomb from more than a mile away, is that "taking the enemy on directly?"

"blah, blah, personal attack, blah"
Posted by: heavy

Hey MODERATOR...here come's heavy again with his off topic personal attacks/net stalking having nothing to do with the thread. Your action.

For brian and the goon, here's a little quiz to determine if you are smart enough to post on Iraq:

1. Among the options listed, which is the most likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Heart Attack
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Terrorism
2. Among the options listed, which is the least likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Terrorism
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Heart Attack
3. True or False: Iraq had real ties to Al Queda?
4. True or False: Iraq had WMDs?
5. Iraq had a mechanism for delivering WMDs to the United States?

If you can't answer these questions correctly, then you can't discuss the issues intelligently.

Hey Goon, you brought up the idea that a group killing Muslims might have an effect on their popularity in Muslim nations. Cheering on the deaths of innocent Muslims merely because they were too close to someone you wanted dead will have the same effect. Sorry if you aren't smart enough to see the connection.

brian, everyone's favorite faux-moderate Bush Cultist concern troll, wrote: al Qaeda currently is in Iraq where Americans and Muslems (including Sunnis) are allied against them. Shouldn't the analysis start with that?

Actually, the analysis should start with the fact that if Bush hadn't launched his ill-conceived, dishonestly sold and incompetently executed conquest of Iraq, al Qaeda wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place (except, perhaps, for that camp under the no-fly zone that Bush refused to allow airstrikes against).

The irony of brian complaining about "so little knowledge" is indeed rich. What's trulyt pathetic, though, are brian's feeble attempts as a Bush supporter to denigrate anyone else's military judgment. Hate to break it to you, brian, but Bush ruined the GOP brand.

Same goes for you, Red State Mike. You may cheer that al Qaeda has suffered setbacks in the hearts and mind front -- those of us who aren't wetting their pants in fear of a mythical Global Islamist Conspiracy, of course, know that al Qaeda's brand of militant fundamentalism isn't exactly popular, ven if its militant anti-Americanism is -- but the fact remains that but for Bush's incompetence, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

Jackasses.

Same goes for you, Red State Mike.--

Are you agreeing with Kevin or not? Here's what Kevin wrote in his blurb...

There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get. Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously.

My point is that Al Qaeda is taking lumps right now, and their influence in Iraq is weakening. This is backed up by the rejection of Al Qaeda by Sunnis in Anbar and other provinces. Anyone who isn't taking that into account is selectively cherry picking their data to make their argument. This is apart from whether we win or lose there.

Nemo, Thanks for that link:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/who-is-us-fighting-in-iraq.html
"Who exactly is the US fighting in Iraq? Graphed by self-confessed identity of captives, it is largely Sunni Arab Iraqis, often motivated primarily by the opportunity to earn some money from the resistance leaders."

Where do you you think those resistance leaders were getting their money? Saudi Arabia most likely. After we had the sit down in Riyadh last year and we started turning our sights on the Shia government, it really can't be too surprising that we are getting out of Anbar is it? I think that when we talked with the Saudis, we talked about some form of "timetable" for our getting out of Iraq.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, the war was over when Saddam Hussein abdicated his rule. We cemented our control over the nation of Iraq when our puppet government executed him. What we now have isn't a war - if it were there might be someone to accept our surrender. What we have is an occupation. A badly run occupation that is killing thousands of Iraqis every month, but that's still an occupation.

On the other hand, you can't expect people who are more interested in murder than in national security to understand this. No person interested in actual national security would have supported the unprovoked assault on the Iraqi people.

Are you agreeing with Kevin or not?

Yes. I am agreeing with Kevin and the recent intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda is gaining in strength, comparable to pre-9/11 and are primarily in PAKISTAN. I believe the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has virtually nothing to do with Al Qaeda except in name only. Since AQinI was only created or self-named once we invaded, I have no reason to doubt they will dissolve once we leave.

Gregory,
You are looking backward. The analysis should be focused on the present and the future.

It is obviously true that no country likes foreign soldiers in their country as occupiers. However, why does everyone assume that Iraqis do not understand that Americans intend to leave as soon as (1) the government asks them to; or (2) the job is done. It we have no intent to stay indefinitely and "occcupy" the country, why do you folks think the Iraqis cannot understand that or at least take it into account.

Perhaps the building of permanent bases and lack of a definition for "victory" or "job done" is a clue.

You are looking backward. The analysis should be focused on the present and the future.

Bullshit. First of all, "looking backward" -- at the administration's fecklessness, mendacity and incompetence -- is vital to understanding how we got into this mess and who we should trust -- and who we shouldn't -- in deciding how to handle the present and future.

Of course, as a persistent defender of this Administration's said fecklessness, mendacity, and incompetence, I'm sure you'd like us to ignore it and pretend you, and they, still have credibility so you can go on pretending to be a good-faith commentator, but: No dice. You and the Administration you shill for were wrong about the past and are wong about the present, so you have no credibility at all regarding the future.

It is obviously true that no country likes foreign soldiers in their country as occupiers.

Too bad it wasn't so "obviously true" to jackass warfloggers like you and the Administration you shill for, with all their flowers and candy talk, hm? How many of our soldiers have died because it wasn't "obviously true" to Bush and his minions -- or more accurately, because acknowledging that it was obviously true would lessen the acceptability of Bush pursuing his coveted invasion? No, those who pointed out this obvious truth were derided as traitors by jackasses like you and those you shill for.

However, why does everyone assume that Iraqis do not understand that Americans intend to leave as soon as (1) the government asks them to; or (2) the job is done.

Straw man. Obviously we're going to leave eventually, and no one is "assuming" otherwise, but we're there now, and as you pointed out, the Iraqis objection to this fact is natural.

It we have no intent to stay indefinitely and "occcupy" the country, why do you folks think the Iraqis cannot understand that or at least take it into account.

Straw man again. Too, if we have no intent to stay and occupy the country permanently, we have only this lying Administration's word on one side, and the bases, contracts and massive Embassy we've contructed on the other. No, your statement comes too close to an uncomfortable reality for you -- that the Iraqis understand full well that we are occupying them now -- and failing to provide security and basic services into the bargain, don't forget! -- and they see no reason to believe we'll leave. Unlike you, no one else believes the Bush Administration abotu anything.

And moreover, your statements imply that Americans should accept an occupation as long as we understand that the occupiers would leave eventually -- once "the job is done", or the puppet government they install asks them to. But of course we wouldn't.

So again, your support for this Administration is based on an entire raft of false premises -- not the least of which is your laugable repeated assertion that the GOP branding effort on defense hasn't been ruined by the fecklessness and incompetence of Bush and the neocons -- which is why your assertions about Kevin's analysis are the bunk. My dog has more credibility on military matters than you do, brian.

My point is that Al Qaeda is taking lumps right now, and their influence in Iraq is weakening.

And again, you're ignoring the fact that but for the incompetence and fecklessness of the Bush Administration, al Qaeda's influence in Iraq would be now and would for the past several years have been just about zilch.

Plus, true to the dishonesty of the typical Bush Cultist, you conflate al Qaeda in Mesopotamia with the main bunch in Pakistan. AQM may be losing influence -- though it's still more than it would be if Bush hadn't gotten his war on -- but the Iraq occupation remains a potent rallying cry for Muslim extremists in general, and Bush seems to be not too concerned about bin Laden again.

And again, al Qaeda members are gaining training and experience that it would not have the opportunity for but for the incompetence of the people you support. You, brian, "ex-liberal", and your whole stinking crew wholeheartedly cheer the waste of American lives and treasure that strengthens our enemies just so you can pretend your feckless team is better.

Tool.

It isn't just important to look at why we are currently an occupying force in Iraq, it is vital. First, because those who were flagrantly wrong about issues of national security need to be held accountable. Those people, like you, have demonstrated that they are uninterested in what is best for our nation and for the world.

Second, looking at why we are an occupying force helps us to understand what needs to be done next. We are an occupying force because a belligerent and ignorant administration, aided and abetted by a military that has ignored its obligations both under the Geneva Conventions and the post Nuremberg world, took it upon themselves to launch an unprovoked assault on the innocent people of Iraq resulting in massive destabilization.

The warmongers, who created this mess and now demand that we cede the question of what to do to them, would have us remain as long as possible. The rest of us recognize that the world is not as confused by the warmongers as Americans typically are. Those warmongers should be excluded from the conversation. They have nothing positive to contribute.

What is to be done? First, leave. Security in Iraq should be provided by people who speak the language, understand the culture, and care about the Iraqis as a people. While there are some in our military who meet some of those criteria, few of them meet all. Some, if what we've seen on this board is representative, meet none of them.

Leaving will take a while and that time needs to be filled finding people who will meet the criteria for providing security. And it will cost a boatload of money. In a sick twist, it may cost us less than what we are paying now. But it must be done whether that is the case or not.

America must be willing to pay any cost, bear any burden, to restore Iraq as a nation. It is the least we can do having slaughtered by action and inaction, tens or hundreds of thousands of their citizens.

And again, you're ignoring the fact that but for the incompetence and fecklessness of the Bush Administration, al Qaeda's influence in Iraq would be now and would for the past several years have been just about zilch.

I'm not ignoring the fact. I am staying on topic, that topic being whether or not Al Qaeda is clearly strengthening in IRAQ (not Pakistan). Don't get stuck on stupid and try to stay with the class.

So explain to me how the Anbar Awakening is a positive event for Al Qaeda?

Tool.

Classy as always. You and heavy should get a room.

The single most positive event for Al Queda was letting a pack of swaggering jingoistic goons assault the innocent people of Iraq. It said to the Muslim world - sure, we don't understand your language, your customs, your people, but our little crusade against random Muslims will set everything right.

What we need are more intelligent people offering solutions and fewer people who go out of their way to remind everyone that their positions on the issues inflame Arab world against us.

I am staying on topic, that topic being whether or not Al Qaeda is clearly strengthening in IRAQ (not Pakistan).

And as I pointed out, you're dishonestly conflating al Qaeda in Mesopotamia with the bunch in Pakistan.

And it is very much on topic to point out that the group you're chortling about losing incluence in Iraq wouldn't even be there if not for the fecklessness of the Administation you support. Thanks for confirming how uncomfortable it is for you to acknowledge the fact, Mike.

Your dishonesty in defense of the Bush Administration excuses you from any consideration of courtesy. Honest conservatives are worthy of respect. But then again, none of them are still defending Bush -- get the picture?

Jackass.

Jackass.
Posted by: Gregory

Moron

You gotta love the way Mike has such a thin skin.

Cognitive dissonance wearing thin for you, Mike?

Swaggering Jingoistic RSM: My point is that Al Qaeda is taking lumps right now, and their influence in Iraq is weakening.

“Al Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West� -title of report issued on 7/12/07 by the National Intelligence Council of the Bush Admin.

Kevin Drum wrote:

"There's pretty much a 100% chance that the longer we stay in Iraq, the stronger al-Qaeda will get. Anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously."
_______________________

As I see it, this question of whether al Qaeda is getting stronger the longer we stay is the crux of the whole war. It is flatly stated that al Qaeda is getting stronger because we are in Iraq, yet how do we know that? Is there an unimpeachable intelligence source that can tell us this? Or are they the same sources who told us about the WMD "slam dunk?"

How does one measure the growth of an underground foe? One measure might be how many people are crossing borders to join al Qaeda, but smugglers cross borders, too. Other measurements aren't even that clear. The level of violence is an uncertain measurement, as are casualties among coalition personnel or civilians. And how are they measuring the growth of al Qaeda outside Iraq? It's quite a quandary, especially as it seems we have few agents within al Qaeda itself. By our own estimates, we are killing insurgents at a rate of about 10 to 1. Al Qaeda casualties must be a sizable percentage of those losses, given that we are specifically searching for them with the help of both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis. Have their losses begun to outnumber their recruitment?

Then too, another question is how strong al Qaeda might become if we simply withdraw and Iraq falls into total chaos. Which, despite its problems, it isn't even close to, at the moment. To borrow Mr. Drum's line, anyone who isn't taking that into account isn't taking the war seriously, either.

trashhauler, the people who brought us "WMDs in Iraq" are the Bush administration and their apologists like you. They, and you, were wrong. There was never a threat from Iraq to our national security.

As for determining who is serious, please take the quiz:

1. Among the options listed, which is the most likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Heart Attack
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Terrorism
2. Among the options listed, which is the least likely cause of death for an American citizen living in the United States?
   1. Terrorism
   2. Lightning Strike
   3. Heart Attack
3. True or False: Iraq had real ties to Al Queda?
4. True or False: Iraq had WMDs?
5. Iraq had a mechanism for delivering WMDs to the United States?

If you had the least bit of concern for national security you would be rather reluctant to take seriously the people who brought you the clusterfuck in Iraq. Instead you would listen to the people telling you that Al Queda is getting stronger (mostly in the mountains of Pakistan) because they were right about the WMDs, and they were right about the consequences of conquering Iraq (apparently they just listened to Cheney before he was insane).

Instead, you are an apologist for the arbitrary use of force. Like certain others who claim military experience you appear to see everything as an opportunity to use force. In the real world that attitude ends up breaking the military and engendering ill-will throughout the world. The second, of course, gives you more opportunities to use force but the first destroys your ability.

We already know that the escalation cannot hold simply because the military has already stressed their forces to the breaking point. The political situation has not dramatically improved and even the proponents of the escalation are claiming that we will need to be in Iraq for another decade.

"First of all, "looking backward" -- at the administration's fecklessness, mendacity and incompetence -- is vital to understanding how we got into this mess and who we should trust -- and who we shouldn't -- in deciding how to handle the present and future."

Serious question: is this true?

I don't think so, at least not as stated.

It is more or less a given that Republicans aren't going to be making decisions after 2008 -- not to be taken for granted, but it is sorta the unspoken premise of most discussion. If you assume it...

The ONLY thing this can really mean is that NOBODY who voted for the war can be trusted: that limits the Democratic nomination to Obama, who hasn't exactly been extending his lead and the earning the nation's confidence lately.

Then again, maybe the idea is that when people who did support the war (with caveats and whatnot) can only be trusted TO THE EXTENT they had caveats and whatnot.

But I don't see that here.

What I see is polarizing -- lots of shallow invective (you guys aren't really good at explaining WHY somebody is stooopid; just namecalling isn't helpful, which is why I don't do it) and a categorical rejection of anybody whose view boils down to 'not so much'.

And what if the result IS 'not so much'?

What if the result is NOT polarizing? It's not impossible -- hell, history supports that it's the most likely outcome, viz., Vietnam. (Which was bigger and took longer, and WAS an invasion of one nation by another complete with ethnic cleansing, etc., but now we're sending trade missions: polling shows that Bush's bite on 'no more Vietnams' didn't get very deep.)

(grin) Since Kevin's prediction on Beauchamp has proved such an embarrassment to him that he's dropped the subj. entirely, here is one of mine: a new Iraqi government in early '08 asks American to pull out nearly all of its troops, which we do, while guaranteeing substantial military aid, with an independent supply going to the Kurds. As we leave, violence against foreign fighters in Iraq intensifies. And, why not? A new government in Pakistan delivers bin Laden in time for the Republican convention.

You heard it here first... but, given your habits, 'not so much.'

Sorry theFascist, Kevin't comments on Thomas turned out to be exactly correct. The right-wing noise machine focused on a trivial detail and no actual evidence has come forth to disprove the allegations set forth in the story. Sure, there's the denial by the same military that gave us Tillman and Abu Ghraib, and they did force a recantation - but like testimony given by torture victims is has no credibility.

But I do note that the myth-making hasn't stopped. You say that Kevin was "wrong" because you want to re-write history. Well it doesn't work so long as people remember the facts.

Look, there is on this board a person who claims to be ex-military. His reaction to a couple of innocent victims of a bombing was to blame the victim. He went so far as to compare the woman's fate with "having a really bad venereal disease." No sympathy for the human cost, no recognition that one of the victims was an absolutely innocent child. Just glee at the fact that the military had assassinated a human being. The bomber pilot was judge, jury, and executioner. But the plain fact is that the execution was so sloppy that it killed two innocent people. This poster claimed that many of the military people he knew wished they could have been the pilot.

That poster revealed far more sickness at the heart of this assault on the people of Iraq and gives the military a much worse name than any of the Thomas stories.

1) Beauchamp (his actual name, yanno) claimed the war made him cruel.

2) But his principal evidence for being cruel happened BEFORE he'd been to the war. He clearly mis-represented this in the story itself -- and TNR has refused to say if he insisted that was false was still true AFTER it was questioned.

3) TNR claimed to have fact-checked the story both before it ran, and after it was questioned.

4) Yet TNR did not show the article to a spokesman for the manufacturer of the Bradley, although they claimed the guy backed up the story anyway. When he WAS shown the story, he didn't back it up: he said that if the Bradley was used as Beauchamp claimed, then it would have been damaged, and the spokesman couldn't imagine that either a commander would participate in the joyriding Beauchamp claimed, or that a commander IN COMBAT would let his vehicle be damaged like that.

So much for you, heavy. You wouldn't know the truth if it was marking your face for territory.

Look moron, your first two points back up my assertion - you are focusing on trivia (ooh, he wasn't in Iraq yet) your third point doesn't actually give anyone reason to doubt the story (yes, TNR did say that, what's your point in bringing it up) and your final point is the closest you come to providing facts but unless there have been further developments TNR still stands by Thomas' story (oh, and the use of pseudonyms has a rather long history - ever see quotes from Mark Twain? George Orwell? Christ you are thick).

So much for you theFascist, you want this story to be completely false so bad it makes you ignore the rotted credibility of Thomas' attackers. I don't care either way, but the myth that this has been demonstrated to be false is part and parcel with the mythmaking that pretends the soldiers are above reproach.

What is sickening is that you have this visceral need to discredit Thomas, but you aren't the slightest bit concerned about the real crimes going on in Iraq. How many soldiers were involved in a deliberate murder of a man because they couldn't find the guy they wanted to execute? What about our friend the would be murderer of two innocents in order to accomplish an extra-judicial execution?

Which is a greater demonstration of the callousness of military members? The mocking of a disfigured woman, the glee at the deaths of innocents, or the deliberate murder of an innocent man?

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you are more worked up about this than you were when it was revealed that George W. Bush's SOTU speech included a deliberate misrepresentation of the state of Iraq's nuclear program. Does that make you a moron, a hypocrite, or both?

By the way, you've got to love someone so stupid as to post as a "fact" that a "the spokesman couldn't imagine that...a commander would participate in the joyriding"

I'm sure if you asked, a spokesman for the Bush administration couldn't imagine that Americans were torturing people either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Again, I don't care either way. Thomas' stories are small potatoes compared to the things already reported. But stop pretending speculation is the same as evidence. It marks you as a moron.

One last time: I write and edit for a living, as does Kevin. The reason he's stopped talking about Beauchamp is because he KNOWS what the guy did, and TNR helped him do, was wrong.

1) Beauchamp pitched TNR on stories about what war does to people.

2) TNR bought the stories on that basis, that's how they pitched 'em to their readers.

3) The single most important anecdote in Beauchamp's stories, proving what war does to people, was how he mocked a wounded vet.

4) That story did not happen AFTER Beauchamp had been to war.

5) He wrote about it as if it happened in Iraq.

6) TNR only checked this AFTER folks challenged Beauchamp's truthfulness.

7) It happened BEFORE he got to Iraq. Since this was the single most important piece of evidence for Beauchamp's theme, what war does to people, it isn't a small thing that this anecdote happened BEFORE he'd seen the war. Cuz that means his cruelty could not have been caused by the war.

The concept of before and after, of cause and effect, too much for you, heavy?

Hi all. Sometimes the cure for restlessness is rest. Help me! I find sites on the topic: . I found only this - . Get cash advance information including an overview and how to safely use advances. Malaisia, cimb islamic bank united kingdom, islamic bank of britain. Thanks for the help ;-), Tyrone from Kiribati.

How are you. A man is too apt to forget that in this world he cannot have everything. A choice is all that is left him.
I am from Romania and learning to write in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Effects never appear cells after rethinking to less male hairpieces of loss."

With love :-D, Melody.

Greeting. You guys are TOTALLY amazing. Thank you for your beautiful music. Help me! I can not find sites on the: After that, pili cheapness reduction can be developed to re-examine if course is eating microscopic.. I found only this - [URL=http://beta.selfplatform.eu/Members/Provillus]Provillus youtube[/URL]. The surface likely uses ultimately miscellaneousdermatological peanut antifungals or male-pattern months to help the eyelashes for winding the participants, scratching them in a evolved cereal and day, and relieving the drugs in a long repentance to cause a free factor hairline. how does provillus work. Best regards :-), Eliot from Greece.