Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 8, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE MYTH OF AQI....REVISITED....In our October issue, Andrew Tilghman argues that al-Qaeda in Iraq is much smaller than popularly believed, accounting for only "2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency." Earlier this week, Gen. James Jones testified before Congress that even this is a high end estimate:

BAYH: Our intelligence services and other experts have indicated publicly that in their opinion about...two percent or fewer of the adversaries that we're facing in Iraq and that the Iraqis are facing in Iraq are foreign jihadis or AQI affiliates, [and] 98 percent or more are Iraqis fighting amongst Iraqis for the future of Iraq. Is that consistent with your understanding?

JONES: I think we would agree with that. Yes.

AQI is a dangerous organization, but it's time to stop pretending that they're the main driver of violence in Iraq. They aren't. They're a small and unpopular group of fanatics who will almost certainly be wiped out whether we withdraw or not. AQI simply isn't a good reason to stay in Iraq, no matter how many times President Bush manages to say their name in a single speech.

Kevin Drum 3:09 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

kevin, as you well know, "reason" has nothing to do with staying in iraq, anymore than "reality" has anything to do with a george bush speech.

Posted by: howard on September 8, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

but it makes a great line for republican presidential candidates and apologists of the war. how else can they justify so many kia, so many wounded?

Posted by: mudwall jackson on September 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

This is precisely my concern, and I wish somebody had called attention to it earlier. With Sunni insurgents & Shia militias sowing chaos throughout the country, we need a counterweight. As Jones makes clear, Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't up to the task -- yet. It's high time we started funding & arming them.

Posted by: junebug on September 8, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile the UN mission in Afghanistan says 80% of the suicide bombers there are foreigners.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6985400.stm

Iraq - the distraction.

Regards, C

Posted by: Cernig on September 8, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Al, here's your chance to say something really, really dumb. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Posted by: Kenji on September 8, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa, you mean all our forces over there aren't really working on defeating Al Qaeda? If Al Qaeda is not in Iraq, then where are they?

Posted by: Swan on September 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

I may be out of the loop but when did AQI emerge as shortened al Qaida?

Posted by: sepoy on September 8, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nevermind. I am stupid.

Posted by: sepoy on September 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

It has always been true that the actual number of foreign al Qaeda members has been small compared to the local insurgents. That's true in Afghanistan, as well, where a relatively small number of foreign al Qaeda rely on the Taliban and Pushtan tribes to do the heavy lifting. Al Qaeda has always relied upon their linkage to the local insurgents for its fighting manpower. Hence, their interest in marrying into the tribal structure wherever they go.

Small numbers do not mean small impact on the insurgency. Malcoln Nance, the other source of small al Qaeda numbers (850) in Iraq cited by Mr. Drum, nonetheless said this about al Qaeda last year:

"And then we have Iraq. And that is the mother of all new al-Qaeda organisations, if you want to put it that way...When you see what we call an SVBIED, a suicide vehicle born improvised explosive device, also known as a car bomb, when you see three of them blow up in the immediate vicinity of the Palestine hotel, one breaches the walls, another allows a big, cement mixture size truck with several hundred pounds of explosives come up and blow up in front of the press hotel, then you start thinking al-Qaeda in Iraq...They're killing Iraqi civilians, and that's where al-Qaeda gets its notoriety from."

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1566485.htm

If only a few score of the hundreds of foreign al Qaeda members in Iraq actually comprise their entire leadership cadre, their connections with other insurgents cam multiply their influence greatly. That's why encouraging the ongoing separation of al Qaeda from the Sunni tribes in Iraq is so important.

Using foreign zealots as suiciders, al Qaeda can keep killing Iraqi citizens almost indefinitely, somewhat obscuring any real change in the military situation in Iraq. But al Qaeda cannot hold towns and large areas without the cooperation of Sunni insurgents and it is that cooperation which is now broken in some parts of the country. This separation from the Sunni tribes will, hopefully, continue to lower the heat on the insurgency in general. That should reduce American combat deaths (as it did in August) and, one prays, give the Iraqi leaders time to get their Sierra together.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Drum:

They're a small and unpopular group of fanatics who will almost certainly be wiped out whether we withdraw or not.

Actually the real argument to make here is that they will be wiped out FASTER if we leave.

Think on that for a bit...

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on September 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Can we now send Andrew Tilghman to investigate the real role of Iran in Iraq? I don't believemost of what I read on the subject.

Posted by: Th on September 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Duh! Of course Al-Qaeda isn't the main driver of violence in Iraq. It's the Iranian Republican Guard, manufacturing and exporting shaped charges used in roadside bombs. And Saddam Hussein probably hid his WMDs in Iran before the invasion -- just like he did with his Air Force before Operation Desert Storm!

Pretty soon we'll have Iranian mullahs giving orders from the White House. You don't want that, do you? Huh? HUH?

Posted by: anonymous on September 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK


No mention of al Qaeda in Iraq is complete without stressing that they are not even loosely connected to the Al Qaeda of 9/11 infamy.

Posted by: winner on September 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

trashhauler, if you're inclined to quote Nance, who is also a Fox News contributor, try to quote more than just one article. Here's one of his from Small Wars Journal:

AQI Does Not Command the Insurgency

Still some classify any Iraqi insurgent support of AQI objectives, active or passive, is often pointed to as a reason to classify all insurgent groups as Al Qaeda. This reading of the enemy does not take into account the diverse strategies, goals, personalities and political linkages of the other insurgents. It lumps them all into one pot and uses the same hammer to try to smash them. Hammering this particular insurgency is like smashing a ball of mercury with your palm. You may get a little of it under your control (and the toxins that come with it) but the rest will disperse, roll away and reform as they please.

Each attempt, no matter how small, to radicalize and dictate to the Sunni community in Iraq failed miserably.

Smart guy, vast experience, says AQI is small potatoes and does not control other groups.

Posted by: TJM on September 8, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

There has been no Al-Qaeda attack on American soil since 9/11. This proves that our agressive policy towards them is working.

Or would you rather be fighting this battle in the fields of Kansas and the streets of New York?

Posted by: Al on September 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody is perfect, but Al comes close to being a perfect specimen of stooopid.

There has been no Al-Qaeda attack on American soil since 9/11. This proves that our agressive policy towards them is working.

No, it doesn't, you drooling nimrod. As a negative can't be proven, you got nuthin.'

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 8, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:
I never comment, but have been reading and enjoying your blog and the comments for years, but one question. Could you get your html/code people to change the code so that when you follow a link in the comments section, you would be directed to the comment the link came from, instead of back to the top of the page and having to scroll down the commment again.

Posted by: Robert on September 8, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry. That was poorly worded. Could you get the code changed so that when you hit BACK,(after following a link in comments) you return to the comment the link came from, rather than the top of the page.

Posted by: Robert on September 8, 2007 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Amen, Kevin. The Democrats need to launch a media campaign to educate people that: (1) Bush has failed miserably in bringing the mastermind of 9-11 and his top lieutenant to justice. Osama bin Laden is still very much alive and mocking the United States six years after 9-11, and (2) AQI is a puny operation that doesn't mean squat and is by no means capable of "taking over Iraq". Kudos to Andrew Tilghman!

On a somewhat related note, I see all the news services today are carrying a lede that says, "Bush Advisors Favor Current War Strategy". Why is this even newsworthy? Does the media think the American people don't recognize that Bush doesn't have a single advisor that can think for themselves? WTF???

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 8, 2007 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

AQI's image consultant has let it down. It should change its name to "9/11 In Iraq."

Posted by: Ross Best on September 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

AQ is as powerful in Iraq as Michigan is in the Big House.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08 on September 8, 2007 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

As Jones makes clear, Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't up to the task -- yet. It's high time we started funding & arming them.

It's off to Gitmo for you, Junebug...

Duh! Of course Al-Qaeda isn't the main driver of violence in Iraq. It's the Iranian Republican Guard, manufacturing and exporting shaped charges used in roadside bombs. And Saddam Hussein probably hid his WMDs in Iran before the invasion -- just like he did with his Air Force before Operation Desert Storm!

Pretty soon we'll have Iranian mullahs giving orders from the White House. You don't want that, do you? Huh? HUH?

Oh, pu-lease.


Posted by: pol on September 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

I also think the latest Osama -- and his message -- are fakes.

Oops. I'm going to Gitmo, now.

Posted by: pol on September 8, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Trashhauler, if you're going to call 2% of Iraqi insurgents belonging to AQI a reason to be in Iraq, then you'd better be able to explain how AQI threatens the American homeland or influences the remaining portion of insurgents besides AQI to be a threat to the U.S. homeland. And after you do that, you'd also better be able to explain why we couldn't counter that without the whole U.S. military being in Iraq.

Or would you rather be fighting this battle in the fields of Kansas and the streets of New York?

Got any argument that the Iraq war prevented terrorist attacks in Kansas or NY? Because if you do, it's gonna be a doozy. And without it, you've lost your argument.

Posted by: Swan on September 8, 2007 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
....their connections with other insurgents cam multiply their influence greatly. ... al Qaeda can keep killing Iraqi citizens almost indefinitely, ....trashhauler at 4:58 PM
I realized it is Bush's and your political agenda to maximize al Qaeda to justify the war in Iraq, but it was obvious from the way the Sunni initially rejected that group that they would have no place in a post-war Iraq. The Shia, of course, never accepted them.

Last year, Bush began harping on al Qaeda, using the term dozens of times in every speech just as he used to always try to associate Saddam with 9-11.

Despite, your attempts at linkage, there is no there there. It is just more cheap Republican propaganda, full of fear and terror, signifying that you are more concerned with selling the war than winning it, and you can only win by withdrawing from Iraq.

Posted by: Mike on September 8, 2007 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Ya Know....
Actually the real argument to make here is that they will be wiped out FASTER if we leave.-ROTFLMLiberalAO

This makes sense. Osama, who probably has body doubles like Hueesein had, could have died years ago, and may have.

Anyway, this new Osama tape comes out just before 9/11 and before the Petraeus report, which is no longer the mother of all reports as promised, andit seems to me Osama wants the troops to stay in Iraq possibly because he knows the Iraqis will turn on him, as many already have.

The ongoing Iraqi Operation, Ironically called Enduring Freedom, now called War, serves to create more Al Qaeda members outside Iraq whil eimside Iraq they aren't finding those members as Iraqis dont much care for Saudis. Even Sadr, though he accepts Iranian help, is an Iraqi nationalist, and has ordered a cease fire to clen out insurgents and stop infighting, doesn't have much use for Al Qaeda.

I agree with Brent Scowcroft, and perhaps Bush Sr., that this Enduring Freedom in Iraq undermines the GWOT.

Posted by: Ya Know...... on September 8, 2007 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

Funding them would be fine, if we could find them here in this country - But, we have not been able to triangulate the location of under FAUX-Lib's bed.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

I think eight years went by between the WTC attacks so a six year gap is not indicative of a winning strategy.

Posted by: sj on September 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Could you get the code changed so that when you hit BACK,(after following a link in comments) you return to the comment the link came from. -Robert

What I usually do, Robert, is open the link in a new location [Firefox, IDeplorer should do likewise] and open it in a new tab, or a new window. On Firefox put the cursor over the link and right click, then open link in new tab/window. Then you wont lose your place.

Posted by: Ya Know...... on September 8, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

It's apparently a lot easier and less embarrassing for the Bush administration to call all foreign jihadists al-Qa'eda than to face the fact that 90% of them are Saudis.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 8, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

I cannot share Kevin's optimism that AQI will be defeated if we withdraw from Iraq. We have already seen how AQI succeeded in fomenting warfare between Sunni and Shia by blowing up a key temple. That bombing didn't require a great many AQI operatives to be effective. Small numbers do not equate to ineffectiveness.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 8, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty soon we'll have Iranian mullahs giving orders from the White House.

I have to agree... that might be marginally worse than Christian mullahs giving orders from the White House.

Posted by: thersites on September 8, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: -- AQI succeeded in fomenting warfare between Sunni and Shia -- 1300 years ago! Heckuva job, Osama.

Posted by: thersites on September 8, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

swan wrote:

"Trashhauler, if you're going to call 2% of Iraqi insurgents belonging to AQI a reason to be in Iraq, then you'd better be able to explain how AQI threatens the American homeland or influences the remaining portion of insurgents besides AQI to be a threat to the U.S. homeland."
________________________

Swan, we're not in Iraq because of the 2% of insurgents who are al Qaeda. We're in Iraq because we went to remove Saddam Hussein and thus far have been unable to extract ourselves without leaving a catastrophe of a country behind. There are many reasons why that is so, al Qaeda and their association with Sunni insurgents being only one of them. It's a particularly nasty reason, though, and breaking them apart will, one should pray, allow us to work on other problems there.

The many problems we face in Iraq were magnified by our poor initial planning. We also failed to realize just how really badly the Baathist regime had screwed up their own country. Saddam's Iraq was essentially a kleptocracy, in which every part of government ran on personal connectons, corruption, and baksheesh, with the Baathists always getting the largest cut. (True, that's a situation common in the Middle East, but Saddam and his buddies took it to an all time new low.) Now we've got this stumbling cripple of a country on our hands where nearly every effort to set up a functioning society is undercut by too many people with an inclination for entitlement, revenge, and corruption. And 24 million Iraqi people are at even greater risk if we simply give up.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is no threat to our homeland right now and probably never will be. Heck, Osama bin Laden is no threat to America in an existential sense. But if we decline to face small threats because we're tired of them or they seem to be too much trouble and we'll soon find ourselves faced with bigger threats that we cannot so easily ignore. In many ways, Afghanistan is an even tougher problem than Iraq -much more backward than Iraq and their own goverment has never controlled all of the country, going back to before Alexander. Are we going to give up there, too?

Posted by: trashhauler on September 8, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

"The ongoing Iraqi Operation, Ironically called Enduring Freedom."
_______________________

The Iraq campaign is OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and the Afghanistan campaign is OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. Together, they are collectively called OEF/OIF.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 8, 2007 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Small numbers do not equate to ineffectiveness."
______________________

Especially if the small numbers gain control of much larger numbers, either through money, marriage, or some offer of common cause. In a way, we are just offering the Sunni tribes a better deal than they had with their old al Qaeda partners, with the added benefit for the Sunnis that we aren't asking to marry their daughters.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 8, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Trashhauler, everything you wrote basically ignores that it's irrelevant to use Al Qaeda in Iraq as a bogeyman or to justify what we're doing in Iraq, because they're just not a big deal. That's the discussion, but you obfuscated quite a bit and engaged in a lot of deceptive, blustery argument (primarily, shaky, unbolstered premises behind your conclusions) that you tried to bury and hide in magnanimous-sounding concessions.

You wrote:

unable to extract ourselves without leaving a catastrophe of a country behind.

How do you know we'll be leaving a catastrophe behind, instead of a place that will get better, and how do you know we're contributing something lasting by staying there longer?

The many problems we face in Iraq were magnified by our poor initial planning. We also failed to realize just how really badly the Baathist regime had screwed up their own country.

But the occupation has also been run badly. We've built them building and facilities that are falling apart as soon as they're put up, because we've put corrupt people and inexperienced Republican kids in charge of putting things back together. The administration delegated a lot of supervision positions in reconstruction to unqualified people in their early 20s, just because those people were rabidly Republican and connected to people they knew.

And 24 million Iraqi people are at even greater risk if we simply give up.

There are efforts that can be made in life that do not help things, but only have costs. Identifying them before they are taken is a good.

Then there's the big lie:

But if we decline to face small threats because we're tired of them or they seem to be too much trouble and we'll soon find ourselves faced with bigger threats that we cannot so easily ignore.

What justifies this conclusion? Is this some kind of existential rule of threats, that applies to all threats? If I do not "deal with" some gypsy pickpocket in Rome, will he eventually come over here and kill me? Of course not.

Many are the lives that have been ruined throughout the ages by charlatans that have begged honest people not to give up on doing something that wasn't even being done, because the charlatan had ulterior motives.

Posted by: Swan on September 8, 2007 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Swan, my first sentence said, "[W]e're not in Iraq because of the 2% of insurgents who are al Qaeda." Therefore, I don't believe I'm using AQI as a bogeyman or as a justification. However, getting rid of al Qaeda might be an important step in our getting the hell out of Iraq, so I guess our success in dealing with them does take on some importance.

You wrote: "There are efforts that can be made in life that do not help things, but only have costs. Identifying them before they are taken is a good."

This is undeniably true. The trouble is that responsibility tends to cloud a person's crystal ball. In any given situation, the only people with perfectly clear crystal balls either haven't got, or would reject, responsibility for what happens.

Then you call this the big lie: "But if we decline to face small threats because we're tired of them or they seem to be too much trouble and we'll soon find ourselves faced with bigger threats that we cannot so easily ignore."

I meant nothing more than that quitters tend to quit, even if they are nations, and that quitting can become a habit. Enemies notice this. It doesn't mean that we should jump in anyplace, simply because we can. As an individual, you can probably safely ignore a threat from someone you'll likely never meet again, though you perhaps shouldn't try it with an enemy who lives two doors down. The United States isn't going to leave the Middle East anytime soon. It's just two doors down.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 8, 2007 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINK

4:02 pm: "Al, here's your chance to say something really, really dumb. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1..."

5:49 pm: "There has been no Al-Qaeda attack on American soil since 9/11. This proves that our agressive policy towards them is working."

Yeah, just the way that missing your cue by an hour and 47 minutes proves you are smart, right? ("Agressive"ly smart, too.)

Posted by: Kenji on September 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

I don't believe I'm using AQI as a bogeyman or as a justification.

Well, I didn't write that you were.

However, getting rid of al Qaeda might be an important step in our getting the hell out of Iraq,

Why would that be?

In any given situation, the only people with perfectly clear crystal balls either haven't got, or would reject, responsibility for what happens.

Do you have any reasons to support this statement? Why must anybody who has good judgment reject responsibility for what happens? You get an F, pal. Besides-- it doesn't have to be a matter of seeing the situation clearly. It can be a matter of ulterior motives that accounts for the difference in a course of action. And it's not a matter of being able to see everything in Iraq with a crystal ball- there's lots of blaring objective evidence for staying in Iraq being a bad idea.

Hey, Trashhauler, I can't help it if you keep coming up with bad arguments for things.

By the way, you're also ignoring my point in my comment at 7:13:

"if you're going to call 2% of Iraqi insurgents belonging to AQI a reason to be in Iraq, then you'd better be able to explain how AQI threatens the American homeland or influences the remaining portion of insurgents besides AQI to be a threat to the U.S. homeland. And after you do that, you'd also better be able to explain why we couldn't counter that without the whole U.S. military being in Iraq."

You wrote:

I meant nothing more than that quitters tend to quit, even if they are nations, and that quitting can become a habit.

You wrote, initially, a lot more than you claim it to have meant, though, to the point that your first statement was deceptive. You made it sound as if people have to face trifling challenges that don't have a chance of hurting us (how you described AQI: "Al Qaeda in Iraq is no threat to our homeland right now and probably never will be.") because they merely possibly could hurt us in the future. That "quitters tend to quit" doesn't mean that someone who quits in the face of a trifiling threat won't fight when faced with a real one. Quite the opposite is to be expected, in the abstract, and I'm sure lots of actual examples could be thought up: people don't treat meaningless threats and real ones the same, and they don't simply because the two actually are different.

You wrote:

As an individual, you can probably safely ignore a threat from someone you'll likely never meet again, though you perhaps shouldn't try it with an enemy who lives two doors down. The United States isn't going to leave the Middle East anytime soon. It's just two doors down.

Recent events show this up as a nonsense justification for occupying areas in the Middle East. The attack almost came: terrorists were dangerously close to attacking Americans in Germany. Having forces in Iraq didn't plug this up. It's implausible that countries in the Middle East or Muslims are going to attack the U.S. unless we are occupying it. There's no reason why an occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan prevents these attacks.

Anyway, we don't have to occupy Iraq to not be ignoring people who want to attack us, if you're just trying to make a general statement that we shouldn't ignore threats. The argument I and many others are making is that occupying Iraq does nothing to help prevent these threats and it has heavy costs. You're not answering that basic point, you're just trying to dance huge circles around it.

Posted by: Swan on September 8, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

I wrote:

You wrote, initially, a lot more than you claim it to have meant, though, to the point that your first statement was deceptive.

Your first statement being, of course:

But if we decline to face small threats because we're tired of them or they seem to be too much trouble and we'll soon find ourselves faced with bigger threats that we cannot so easily ignore.

Posted by: Swan on September 8, 2007 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Together, they are collectively called OEF/OIF.

A better abbrev is GIGO.

Posted by: Disputo on September 8, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

"You get an F, pal."
___________________

I usually do, when I'm being graded. I'm pretty stupid.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 9, 2007 at 6:28 AM | PERMALINK

I usually do, when I'm being graded. I'm pretty stupid.

Ha ha ha. Dumber than me, of course.

Posted by: Swan on September 9, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

we are just offering the Sunni tribes a better deal

The same Sunnis that previously were killing Americans. What could possibly go wrong with that strategery?

Posted by: ckelly on September 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

It doesn't mean that we should jump in anyplace, simply because we can

Whoops, too late. Where was this view in '03 o' great peddler of trash?

Posted by: ckelly on September 9, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

"It doesn't mean that we should jump in anyplace, simply because we can"

Whoops, too late. Where was this view in '03 o' great peddler of trash?
______________________

Right where it is now, expressed openly. Of course, that had no bearing on doing my damnedest to make the invasion a success by assisting in the transportation part of the deployment.

At the time, I suggested that our best move after being forbidden the use of Saudi Arabian ports and airspace for our Afghanistan campaign would be to redeploy all "Saddam containment" forces out of the region. I gave it six months (certainly no more than a year) before Saddam would have been acting up again, probably by attacking the Kurds, providing direct assistance to al Qaeda, and once again threatening Kuwait. We could have then reengaged with a completely clear casus belli, though I admit the delay could have been a bit tough on our allies. I suspect the NCA decided that they could not simply leave Saddam in place and leave, so that option was probably never taken seriously, if it was ever considered at all.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 10, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly