I mentioned a few days ago that I have started “tuning out” people who are calling for a withdrawal. Over the last few weeks I have started feeling more confident about the situation in Iraq. Evidently, so are Americans.


I think with Miers thing out of the way and the lack of meat to the CIA investigation Bush has turned the corner and been able to concentrate a message about Iraq again. With Katrina, Miers, and Libby Bush had lost some support from the Right and the ability to debate the left on the issues. The left has overplayed their hand on this and with the elections coming up more good news is coming from Iraq.

Americans do not like being told we cannot do something. At the heart of the American spirit is optimism, there is not a lot of hope coming from the Democrats. I do not think anyone can argue that. Look at the beating Hillary and Lieberman are taking for maintaining a rational outlook about Iraq. Hillary is too good of a politician to jump on the losing “immediate withdrawal” bandwagon.

No I've based it on careful consideration of what experts have to say on the subject, on what independent and global media have said and what the Iraqi government itself has said. Much of that is cited here in this thread. I've also based my views on my own understanding of strategy and of course critical thinking.

You on the other hand have supplied nothing but tired rhetoric and talking points. If you wish to add meaningful substance to the debate then perhaps ideas could be discussed. If the whole of your argument is invoking words like "cut and run" and throwing around Pelosi's name like it is supposed to be a bad thing then you really don't have much of an argument.

Edited to add:

Ok I'm going to clear this up right now. Since you seem to be "tuning people out" Nemov there is a good possibility you've missed quite a bit. So here's a list of all of the presumed Democratic candidates in '08 and their positions on this issue.



I see no potential Democratic candidate advocating "immediate withdrawl" so you might want to check your facts or "tune back in".

And as far as the "not a lot of hope coming from Democrats" quote - complete garbage. You need to dial it down a bit lest you be reminded that your party is involved in some of the biggest corruption investigations in recent history. Does that give the country hope?

Vermillion made, I think, an excellent post here, which eloquently states what I suspect is indeed the desire for 'leave by' date, and the reasons for it. For those espousing this point of view, I would be very interested in knowing if this summarizes that viewpoint. I do now see the driving factors behind it, and will say that I am not against them. Essentially, there is a lack of information regarding progress, leading to the impression that we might be involved in a quagmire, and therefore need a date by which we need to, at least, determine absolutely whether we are, or not. I don't disagree with this. However, rather than a 'leave by' date, it would seem that the real desire that need to be met is for much more definitive information on progress (or lack thereof), and what constitutes success. To me, it seems that the leave-by date is more of a fail-safe...assuming that all other conditions for withdrawal have been inadequately addressed. While I grant that that is indeed the current situation, I don't think, particularly after Bush's speech, that we are at a point at which we can conclude we won't get there, which would therefore leave the pull-out date as the only option. I think all of us would prefer to leave Iraq successfully, and, as Vermillion states, I don't think we can yet categorically state that that isn't possible. Therefore, I don't think a pull-out date is justified at the current time.

I heartily suggest you read my post about 6 above again, where I made the case that in this instance, the situation is exactly the same as Vietnam. Simply saying 'No it ain't' is not an argument.

In Iraq just as in Vietnam, it eventually became clear to the Government that the people were no longer buying the reasons that the Country got involved, and support for the war had puummeted faced with the double whammy of dishonesty by the government, and increasing numbers of US casualties produced by that dishonesty.

In the Vietnam case, as now, once the Government's tales of why we should be there were not being accepted anymore, the rhetoric suddenly changed to 'It will be worse if we pull out', and 'no matter why we got there, we have to stay the course'.

It has reached the point where many of Bush Jr's sound bytes are mirror images of those bland justifications offered by Johnson 40 years earlier.

Well, the reality is, the US 'stayed the course' and tilted at the windmill of "The local government taking charge" until long past it became clear that this was an impossibility.


In the end of course, North Vietnam took over South Vietnam, and the two unified as a communist state, and be clear on this, the reason for the Communist victory was NOT the US pullout, it was the US invasion in the first place.

So deny all you want the blatant similarities in US Government policy between these two, but you cannot deny the possibility, and increasing possibility, of the same thing happening.


I would also like to point out that if you stated to the US Hawks (and many did) 3 years ago, that in November 2005 the US would till be embroiled in Iraq with monthly casualty rates on the rise, 2100 dead and 17,000 casualties, they would have (and did) laugh at you and label you with the ame 'anti american', 'pessimist', 'fearmongerer' labels that are being thrown around here and now.

Can Iraq work, sure, its possible. But as long as people refuse to accept the possibility that this whole venture was an error, and that continued presence will only serve to make things worse, then the chances that this will turn into Vietnam v2.0 increase weekly.


EDIT to add
Thank you Hobbes. I am, I should point out, also not advocating immediate withdrawl at all. And if you prefer, I am willing to suggest an alternative to a withdrawl timeline: simply aknowledge failure cirteria.

Love him of hate him, Bush Jr. has become notorious for moving the goalposts, redefining situations as events unfold. Wheither it was the morphing justification on the Iraq war, his morphing promise regarding firing during the Miers inquiry and so on. To be fair, he is hardly the first president, or politician to have this talent.

So why not set failure criterion? "The US will have failed if we cannot hand over X% of domestic security duties by Y date." Or something along those lines. Instead Bush Jr. keeps promising the sky in an impossible situation, and then dodging reality when it rears its ugly head.

IF failure in Iraq is a possibility, and it CLEARLY is a possibility, then it would be nice to recognise this possibility rather than ignoring it and sticking your ears in the sand while Billions of dollars vanish and thousands of casualties result.


In 1944, during the D-Day invasion, Eisenhower had a handwritten note in his back pocket in case the invasion failed, claiming full responsibility and resigning his post immediatly. Nowadays the leaders would just pretend the failure was a sucess and change and rewrite their original goals and motivations to make it seem that this was what they wanted all along.

Hogwash - pure and simple.

I've never claimed that things are A-Ok in Iraq. There are problems - security mostly - but the progress in Iraq far outstrips the bad. The economy is booming, 3/4 of Iraq is stable, the people are prospering as they never did under Saddam, and there is political freedom now that wasn't in evidence before.These are things you choose to ignore in your crusade to paint Iraq as a dismal failure and country-wide civil war. A premature pull-out as Murtha and Pelosi demand would destroy all that has been accomplished so far - nothing but pure politics motivates this move. There is a saying going around now, "Anything bad for the US and Iraq is good news for the Democrats." Now mind you, not all Democrats (such as Lieberman and Clinton), but those of your political persuasion.

I can cherry-pick 'experts' on the region as well who hold positive views of the place (I've pointed to a few so far - Lieberman, Abizaid, Franks, Myers, etc).

For one who spits out far-left Democratic talking points - you shouldn't be lecturing others for the same.



No - this is not Vietnam. The insurgency, unlike the NVA and the VietCong, do not have broad popular support. There is political freedom that was not in evidence in Southern Vietnam and the economy of Iraq is booming compared to the stagnation the South was enduring at the time. Vietnam has been so stigmatized that all the left has to do is scream Vietnam in reference to Iraq. In order for the comparison to be valid - the popular support (the most important in my opinion) has to clearly be on the side of the insurgency - which it is not, the vast majority vehemently oppose the insurgents. There is also the matter of three distinct groups within Iraq that has no comparison to the make-up of the Vietnamese people.

As to the 'lies of the goverment' - this is based upon pure partisan drivel and nothing more. Every investigation into the matter has proven the opposite - yet the left has some sort of 'divine knowledge' that tells them the Bush administration knowingly lied about the war (or more close to the mark, political cut-throat mud slinging is better name for it).

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?

If you mean a PUBLIC time table the answer is no for obvious reasons. IMO ther has always been a “timetable” and it was related to achieving the political and military objectives we started with. Thus when Iraqis are ready to take over a free society we should let them do that. Obviously this will take more time but IMO we have made tremendous progress. We need to finish the job and leave as soon as possible.

Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?

No. If anything it has drawn some of our worst enemies there were we can face them with our military rather than here where they could potentially do us much more harm. Also IMO we have not been attacked here in part because NO government in the world is supporting terrorists that might do great harm in this country and subsequently be traced back to THEM. With so much power in the region you can understand why. Just look at the 90’s. They hit us again and again at home and abroad when Bill Clinton was President. We have not been hit that hard since then and I think it is because the terrorists now are in disarray and have little if any state support.

Is there another option?
No. Backing out in Iraq will be a clear signal that we can be beaten and cannot finish what we start.

Is there a broad consensuses amongst experts on this subject ? Does the independent and global media all have the same opinions on Iraq..is the Iraqi government all in agreement? No. Admit it you have chosen to take careful consideration of one side of the argument...not the argument entirely.

As for the comments that we are just in a groundhog day like scenario where we just keeping waking up and repeating the same tortured event called Vietnam. I think this discussion belongs in the history forum personally.

Iraq is not Vietnam because well it's Iraq and I have made this point before here at AD that we honestly really need not look to another country, in another region of the world, with an entirely different set of ethnicities and cultural beliefs, to make a comparison to failure or how difficult success in Iraq can be because Iraq herself already harbours an extremely rich history of conflict, occupation and failures.

Using Vietnam as a fire blanket to extinguish any debate on the possibility or true desire most Americans have for success in Iraq is just an aggressive tactic to force us to admit or at least envision our failure before it has occurred.

It is not an attempt to make a valid comparison or encourage debate and it most certainly is not made in order to explore what is really happening in Iraq. If this was the goal then again as I said above we would see more concern and consideration to the history of Iraq and not Vietnam.

Way to entirely sidestep my point. I think I was exceptionally clear, in two posts sucessively, that the exact similarities with Vietnam are due to the US handling of the changing situation. I think I explained that in great detail, twice, and evidenced it at length. So if you are going to rebut the similarity, please feel free to stay even close to the point I was making.


However, for giggles, lets just look at your rebuttal shall we?
-"The VC had broad popular support". No, actually, initially they had almost no popular support, and had enormous difficulty operating in huge sections of the South. They were restricted to the relatively hostile Mekong delta and river, because nobody else wanted them. However, the continued and increasing presence of US troops, the refusal of the US to take responsibility for its heavy handed tactics (Abu Graib anyone?) and distate at long-term 'occupation' by US forces, not to mention their seeming inability to stop attacks and keep law and order, turned the people against the US and for the Viet Cong. Any of this ringing any bells?
-'There is political freedom that was not in evidence in Vietnam'. No, again. This in fact is one of the most hilarious, almost eerie similarities. The US insisted on free and democratic elections (power had been taken by a Vietnamese hunta) by a certain date, in order to 'demonstrate' the legitimate will of the people. The voter turnout was almsot identical to the vote in Iraq, but as the government could not possibly hope to maintain order, or even stay in power without direct US support, they soon lost all credibility. Sound familiar?
-The economy of Iraq is booming. Now which right wing pundit gave you this factoid?
According to the Economist, GDP per capita in Iraq is 23% lower than it was in 2000, and that number has been on a steady decline with no upwards signs at all. Coonsumer prices on the other hand are 540% of what they were in 2000, and that inflation shows no signs of abating, its increase is also unchanging. Unemployment is 32% estimated, and in late 2004 industry in large parts of the country was shut down for almost 2 months due to a fuel shortage.

Now its not ALL bad, the new Iraqi Dinar is stable, and revenues are predicted to increase next year, possibly leading to the first positive growth year in the economy, but that is largely due to the significant increase in oil prices, and it is unclear how much of that profit will actually reach the Iraq people.

Forgive me, but Oh my god that argument is such a steriotype. When asked the pointed question of how exactly the open wound of Iraq has 'made the world safer', the answer, 'all the world's terrorists are flocking to Iraq and we are killing them there', is occasionally brought up.

Except that it has no basis in reality whatsoever. The US military itself estimates that of all the insurgents in Iraq, at most 7-8% of them are foreign fighters, of those most are from Saudi Arabia (that good buddy of the US) and are acting as trainers and advisors, and are thus not being killed or captured.

The number of terrorist ttacks around the world, and the casualties caused by them, have increased year to year since the invasion. So please, if one is going to drag out that tired old dog again, please back it up with some evidence, beacuse all the evidence I have seen thourougly discredits it.

Then back it up jleavy, lets see your evidence. You've done a lot of talking and you've accused me of "spouting far left talking points" when I'm not even sure you know what they are in the first place - if you did you'd know I'm not spouting them. Let's see some proof. Stop dropping names and get links, quotes and analysis.

Your ignoring the fact that terrorism ...especially Islamist terterrorism...depends on a great amount of funding. As the article I posted earlier on aptly described it "Even a trickle of cash translates quite directly into damage. And if it can be assumed that for each of the 700-2,000 foreign fighters in Iraq (the current estimate of the Brookings Institution), there are many others who prefer to play jihad with their cheque books, there has been much more than a trickle."

Iraq is in fact not only drawing Jihadists into Iraq from all over the world but also attention and most importantly funding. Remember all that follow the money rhetoric we all were subjected to many moons ago....when did the money stop being such an important thing in the war against terror?

People always go on about how the American's fight can not sustain itself ..the cost nor the distraction yet what about the enemy? Is this not a great cost and distraction for them too?




Thankfully as the article I have quoted further entails support for the Jihadists goals are becoming less and less popular and political resistance over military resistance is gaining support in Iraq...in fact the whole ME. The Jihadists have their own heavy handed tactics that don't sit too well with the Iraqi people (or the people of the ME) either.

First off, thanks Nemov for pointing out the road from the Baghdad airport is no longer the death drive it once was. I'll grant you that's progress---of a sort.



Awww....you had to go and spoil it with more of this "the Left" booshwah and your happy talk about "more good news is coming from Iraq."

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 while they were on a foot patrol near Fallujah, the Marine Corps said Friday, in the deadliest attack on American troops in nearly four months. Thursday's bomb, which was made from several large artillery shells, struck members of Regimental Combat Team 8 of the 2nd Marine Division near the city about 30 miles west of Baghdad, the Marine Corps said.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

Is that what you mean by "more good news is coming from Iraq?"

Or did you mean these other developments just this week:

* BAGHDAD, Iraq - The kidnappers of four Christian peace activists threatened to kill the hostages unless all prisoners in U.S. and Iraqi detention centers are released, according to a videotape broadcast Friday by Al-Jazeera television.

A German archaeologist, Susanne Osthoff, 43, also disappeared recently. On a video made public Nov. 29, kidnappers threatened to kill her unless Germany stops dealing with the Iraqi government. Osthoff, who speaks Arabic, had helped distribute aid in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

* WASHINGTON - Military officials for the first time Friday detailed and broadly defended a Pentagon program that pays to plant stories in the Iraqi media, an effort the top U.S. military commander said was part of an effort to "get the truth out" there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051203/ap_on_...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--

* VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Two of America's allies in Iraq are withdrawing forces this month and a half-dozen others are debating possible pullouts or reductions, increasing pressure on Washington as calls mount to bring home U.S. troops.

Bulgaria and Ukraine will begin withdrawing their combined 1,250 troops by mid-December. If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.

Japan and South Korea help with reconstruction, but Britain and Australia provide substantial support forces and Italy and Poland train Iraqi troops and police. Their exodus would deal a blow to American efforts to prepare Iraqis to take over the most dangerous peacekeeping tasks and craft an eventual U.S. exit strategy.

http://www.620ktar.com/?nid=46&sid=111052

* WASHINGTON (AFP) - Despite US claims of progress in quelling the insurgency in Iraq, it remains as robust as ever with a potential for becoming a good deal stronger, according to a new study.

The study said the insurgency, comprised of nationalists, members of Saddam Hussein's toppled regime and foreign Islamic fighters, showed no sign of losing steam 32 months after the US-led invasion.

"Although thousands of insurgents have been killed and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been detained ... incident and casualty data reinforce the impression that the insurgency is as robust and lethal as ever," it said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051201/pl_afp/usiraqinsurgents

* BAGHDAD - Gunmen wounded an adviser to Iraq's interior minister and killed one of his bodyguards in an attack on his convoy in Baghdad, police said. Police sources said the adviser, Saad al-Obeidi, and two of his other guards were wounded.

RUTBA - The bodies of four people who were bound and gagged and then shot dead were found by the side of the road between Qaim and Ruba, police said.

BASRA - An Iraqi translator who had worked with British forces was assassinated on Wednesday by gunmen in the southern city of Basra, police said.

KIFL - Three civilians were killed when a U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle rolled over their car in Kifl, a town about 150 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. The U.S. military had no information about such a report.

FALLUJA - A U.S. Marine died of wounds sustained from small arms fire in Falluja on Wednesday, the U.S. military said in a statement.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KAM123643.htm

Just some of the "good news" from one week in Iraq.

Americans don't like to be told they cannot do something, but it's become increasingly apparent that you don't have to be on "the Left" or a pessimist to figure out this nation-building experiment in Iraq is a failed experiment. If there isn't a lot of hope coming from the Democrats, conversely, there isn't a lot of reality coming from the Republicans.

President Bush went before the microphones this morning to discuss economic growth and job creation. What he didn't mention, but White House press secretary Scott McClellan acknowledged later was that Bush knew ten Marines had been killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

QUESTION: Can I ask, when the president came to the Rose Garden this morning about 10:45, at that hour, did the White House already know about this attack on the Marines in Fallujah?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, we did. The president was informed about the loss of the Marines last night and those that were injured, and then he was briefed again this morning.

Typical. Fresh off yet another "major speech" about Iraq before a military audience, The Chickenhawk-In-Chief yaks it up about how noble and brave our armed forces are, but passes on acknowledging their sacrifice so as not to cast a shadow over The Message of the Day.

But why should Dubya let a few more dead and injured Marines overshadow some happy talk about the economy. More good news! More positivity! Less of the nattering nabobs of negativity!

Apparently, all of the propaganda isn't being spread merely in Iraq. There's plenty to spare for the folks back home and right here on America's Debate.

Mostly. I think I got more detailed than reality leaving us in the dust. My failure date must be further along than Vermillion’s.

I don’t think Americans are ready to throw in the towel—they’re up for a blanket party. If it takes a “failure” date for White House/Pentagon speech writers to cough up more specifics than recycled platitudes people may feel like they have a stake in Iraq whether or not a family member/friend is deployed there, and by extension, regain a sense of control over the situation by being able to hold the White House accountable to progress.

However, the White House and Pentagon would have to do an about face on GWoT policies then somehow string the legislature along. Coming clean on extraordinary renditions and executive detainments to set the tone (Padilla’s case looks like a joke), likely raise taxes and cut pork, etc. These internal adjustments (the ones Bush/Rumsfeld have control over) need to take place for the public to give the White House the benefit of the doubt again and to be honest, I think this makeover is even more unlikely than securing the peace in Iraq.

NO, I am not ignoring that argument, I just happen to find that argument absolutely hysterical. Firstly we seem to agree on the fact tht there are no significant numbers of foreign fighters in Iraq. Using the numbers you quoted, 700 to 2000. So clearly there is no 'drain on international terrorism' through manpower.

But you are correct about one thing, money matters too. There is money being funneled into Iraq from foreign sources. Money certainly never stopped being important in the war on terror.

However, there are a few little facts that make this 'taking money from worldwide terrorism' argument utterly laughable.

1- Since the US government steadfastly refuses to deal with, or even aknowledge, the worst kept secret in international relations, that the single largest financial (and manpower) supplier of world terrorism is Saudi Arabia, that good ole buddy of the US. Since Bush Jr refuses to take his blinders off about this, money for terrorits continues to flow.

Even more amusingly, most of this money, indirectly due to increased oil prices, comes from the West and the US.

2- How much money exactly does it take to fund 700 to 2000 men? I doubt they are making the salaries and benefits of US forces, they are certainly not equipped anywhere near as well, most of their large equipment is cobbled together (roadside bombs tend to be artillery shells from the Iraqi stockpile). Even if they are funding other internal groups as well as the foreign fighters, how much are they spending?

Do you think they are spending a billion dollars per week? Obviously not, how about 10 million per week? Thats still insanely high, how about $500,000 per week? Do you think the foreign funding flowing into Iraq day in and day out, to help fund the insurgency is $100,000 per week? (only foreign funding of course, not including funds from disaffected locals)

Well, the US is spending 1.5 billion dollars per week in Iraq, money it increasingly cannot afford. The total spent is approaching $400 billion dollars, destroying the budget and sending the US debt soaring. I wonder if it is not the Insurgents who are winning the 'money war'?

Most of the people fighting the US in Iraq are Iraqis, using Iraqi money and Iraqi weapons, there is no loss to international terrorism there. You yourself have admitted that there are fewer foreign fighters in Iraq than there are US dead to date, the money spent by international terrorists in Iraq is flowing freely from the US coffers, into Saudi Oil, into terrorists hands...

Heck, you could make an argument that since the Invasion of Iraq caused a spike in the oil prices, and massive surpluses for the Saudi Royal family, who then fund terrorism, one could argue that the whole insurgency has been a profit making excersise for the Terrorists, while the US slowly bankrupts itself.

That is certainly apparent by the fact that these same terrorists have apparently had the money and manpower to mount a series of high profile attacks acros Europe and the world in the last 2 years.

Sorry, the somewhat desperate argument that 'The US is fighting international terrorism in Iraq' is utterly inane. Every report released; http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=15100 for example, last year's IISS strategic survey is another:
clearly states that not only is Al Qaida in better shape now than ever before, but that the presence of the US in Iraq is serving as an excellent recruiting tool. Far from being weaker, Al Qaida has never been this strong.

So much for that argument.

I never said there was a drain on international terrorism through manpower, I claimed otherwise, that funding and preoccupation was the more important drain and here you have just assured my belief that you will not properly address my argument by altering my argument.

I am not the one focused on a roll call of foreign jihadists in Iraq. I think it is best to address how these people are receiving their funding, their equipment, their materials of destruction, their ability to travel in and out and their harboring.

I also don’t believe that being a foreigner matters much in determining if we can or can not consider them a jihadist. I think this belief that one must be foreign in order for one to be a representative of the jihad is not at all supported. Time and time again we have seen that the terrorists bombings in Iraq and outside of Iraq have most often been carried out by the local off shoots of the al Qaeda movement..like Morocco, London, KSA, Bali and so forth. Many of those arrested or believed to have had a role in these events have not been foreigners either. They were jihadists...Islamic militants..and that is because being a jihadists does not require you to fight or wage war for any particular nation state so your citizenship is really meaningless.


That is not the least bit true and it is hardly a secret you have forced me to admit...I have had this debate before at long before now.
Saudi Arabia and the Fight Against Terrorist Financing
So I think anyone who is approaching this discussion objectively would not claim the “US government steadfastly refuses to deal with, or even acknowledge, the worst kept secret in international relations, that the single largest financial (and manpower) supplier of world terrorism is Saudi Arabia” Because obviously she has. What I think you would have a more legitimate argument with is how effective the US has been...not some claim she just has no idea or is keeping it all hush hush.

I have no idea and neither do you or many others. Saddam used to pay 25,000USD a family for their martyred sons.

But we have been seeing some info that many of us have long suspected getting official backing that disputes your claims that they are merely “cobbling” these roadside bombs together.
Britain blames Iran’s Revolutionary Guard for supplying the advanced technology that had helped Iraqi insurgents to kill British soldiers with roadside bombs. The UK official said the bomb technology used against British forces in Iraq had come from the Tehran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, via Iran.
source


Or heck you could consider the fact that walking away and handing them a nation with the second largest oil supplies in the world might in fact be an even bigger exercise in profit making.


You seem to be under the belief that jihadists are more dependent on state funding then they are on private funding. I disagree. I think in some situations states might feel that jihadist terrorist's strategies might help assist their own interests (like Iran in Iraq and Lebanon) but I feel when it comes to Europe... as you chose to highlight ....that you're wrong. What state supports the bombing of innocents in Europe ...and why?


The argument is not that we are fighting international terrorism in Iraq...but that Iraq is one of the fronts of this war. Afghanistan would be another, our actions in Philippines or Indonesia or Pakistan again more fronts. Hopefully we won’t have to invade every nation or country in order for you to concede that the war is in fact international.

And 9/11 I am sure served as an excellent recruitment tool too. Also I think al Qaeda was doing pretty well in Afghanistan before. Seems things have gone a bit down hill for OBL and his groupies since then.

As the article I linked to at the beginning of my argument supports al Qaeda an her off shoots have become less and less popular to the people of the ME...not more so as you claim. Do you think this might have some bearing on their strength?

I think Vermillion pretty well shot down the funding part of your argument Bucket. One thing about guerilla war is that it is extremely cheap to fight, that is in fact one of the reasons why it is used. These insurgents aren't using missiles that cost $100K they are using weapons you can pick up for at most a few thousand on the black market. Secondly, many of the weapons being used come from Saddam's large an unprotected stockpiles of conventional weapons. You remember all of those ammo dumps that folks here on AD were saying were unprotected after the invasion and we were chiding the military for not making more of an effort to protect them? Where do you think the insurgents got their weapons?

The second part of your argument basically amounts to what... the terrorists can't walk and chew gum at the same time? I would highly doubt that global terrorism is fixated on Iraq. In fact a terrorist cell had no problem attacking London a few months ago if I seem to remember correctly. Terrorism incidents in other parts of the global have certainly not decreased, in fact they have increased dramatically. By your logic the terrorists should be so busy with Iraq that they don't have time for anything else. The facts clearly indicate otherwise.

What we will probably learn in hindsight is that we are going to have many more terrorist organizations than Al Qaeda to deal with as a direct result of our actions in Iraq.

Cube Jockey is part of your responsibilities as a committee member to publicly announce whose argument has been "shot down" by whom? I had thought taking a battleship the game approach to debate here at was in fact discouraged.




Don't we need to view this with some sort of context? Shouldn't the cost of living for terrorists compared to US soldiers need at least some kind of consideration other than direct comparisons of costs? Saying that the financial strain the jihadists endure for spending a dollar amount compared to the strain the US feels for spending the same amount is the equivalent or shared is absurd. What their costs are and the burden it has on there financial incomes is not interchangeable with that of America's ..it is not a direct dollar for dollar comparison.

I stand by my argument I believe the more and more the jihadi fanatics kill and murder innocent Muslims the less and less people in the ME wish to view them as a legitimate "charity". And that waging war on well armed American forces in Iraq is a lot more costly than it is to bomb the London underground or to walk into a Jordanian hotel and blow yourself up.


It is just an inverse of a very common anti-war argument. That America is so focused on Iraq that she can not afford the needed attentions to successfully fight the GWOT. Why would this argument not be universal? Is there something that in particular makes the US more susceptible to this?

You are only just now are recalling a terrorist attack in London? I used the London bombing in my last post as part of my argument that foreign jihadis are not the only indicators of islamist militancy...maybe I reminded you of this...perhaps? It's not like those in London who committed the bombings had decided to travel to London because of what happened in Iraq. They were already there. So how can you say that Iraq was their catalyst? You can't.... it is only a guess.

You know, this is the first time here on AD I've become deeply offended. Part of our culture is to refer to our country as a "she" just like our ships and other things of great importance to us. It is a clear sign of affection and just because you have none, please do not force your view of it of others.

I think the pro-war people on here are as delusional as I'm sure you think they are. They have to make a case for war with no evidence to support it while we call it a mistake and travesty with plenty of supporting evidence. But that's what makes our country different. We are obligated to question our leaders privately and publicly to make sure America stays as great as she always has been - even with the ugly roadbumps.

If you don't like it, move to France. I'm sure he would welcome you.

Well, if I may be so bold, he was right.

Without wanting to put words in his mouth, I also think CJ was referring to amusing comment of yours that 'I obviously was not going to address your point' (made when I stated as introduction, that which we agreed upon s a baseline) then spent the rest of the post trying to deal with my clear and evidenced dealing of your point. Just a tad ironic.

Anyways, You asserted that there is value in the war in Iraq because it is tying down and using up the resources of International terrorists. You said this without any evidence at all, just an assertion that this is happening. Since we have agreed that there are between 700 and 2000 foreign fighters total in Iraq, a staggeringly insignificant number, we agree that no human resources are being tied down. So what evidence do we have that financial resources are being tied down?

When I asked how much funding support these insurgents are getting, I suggested that perhaps, as a total guess I admit, even $100,000 per week seems high. Whatever it is, I see no reason whatsoever why it would be particularily large. Your answer:



I admit I have no idea. But if you have no idea either, how exactly to you justify your statement that significant sums of money are being tied down in Iraq? Where does this blanket assertion come from?

The costs of the insurgency are small. Recruits, weapons and explosives are all locally obtained, I imagine even if the insurgents are paid, they make nowhere near what a US soldier makes in wages or benefits, in fact if we look at a similar example for compairason, 1980's Afghanistan, almost all the foreign fighters there were volunteers. So what makes you think ANY significant money is being spent in Iraq?

Though we disagree on how much the US government is willing to aknowledge the singular role of Saudi Arabia in funding terrorism, we agree that aknowledged or not, the US is doing little or nothing about it. Due to the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia is as rich now as it has ever been, money from the west is rolling in, and as always being spread around the royal family.

Saudi GDP in 2004 was $310 Billion dollars, compared with $191 billion dollars just 4 years ago. So there is no shortage of money to go around. The same applied to every other oil producing state in the Gulf. So its pretty clear that the Iraq war has been very good for business.

But wait, there's more. Every strategic study produced over the past 2 years says the same thing, that Al Qaida is growing stronger and wealthier, rebuilding both financial and manpower resources lost when the US attacked Afghanistan, and are currently stronger than they were before 9/11.

Check out:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=15100
or last year's IISS study to see for yourself.



Good point, lets compare.
International terrorist organisations are keeping 700 to 2000 men on the ground in training and advisory roles. They may be supplying some weapons, though most weapons used against US forces are Iraqi in origina, but there are some exceptions as you mentioned. Most of these forces are traditionally volunteers, and are being housed and fed locally. In fact, to be honest we have no evidence at all that ANY money is being spent by international terrorist bodies in Iraq, and we have a LOT of evidence as cited above, that if money is being spent, it is a- a pittance compared to the money being made because of the oil price boom, and b- it is certainly not affecting the unrestrained growth and expansion of the organisations themselves, nor their attacks on nations outside Iraq, of which there were more in 2004 then any year peviously.

On the other hand, the US is spending 1.5 Billion dollars per week, and has a butcher's bill of over $400 billion dollars so far. It has suffered about 18,000 casualties, and has currently 160,000 people on the ground, as well as all their equipment and facilities. The US military is stretched to the limit, current troop strength has only been maintained because of stop/ loss orders, and reducing military deployments around the world, such as in japan and Korea, to feed them into Iraq. That is not sustainable in the long run.

How's that for a compairason?



You base this on the article you keep referring to, the Economist article you cited on page 4 of this thread? Its a pity the article you use to support your claims does not agree with your claims.

It states that the opinion of many people regarding Al Qaida has changed for the worse in Jordan. Not across the Middle East, in Jordan. And yet the very same article also polls the same Jordanians and find that 57% of Jordanians beilieve that violence is always or sometimes justified against civilians (and another 31% believe it is occasionally justified) and a full 60% of Jordanians expressed confidence in Osama Bin Laden. I bet Bush Jr. wishes he had an approval rating that high.

The very same article states that 82% of Iraqis want the US occupation to end. Was this the one you were quoting to support your position?



Why exactly?

I don't feel Vermillion's statement adequately captures my feelings about the situation. There are 3 primary reasons why I feel a timetable needs to be set and adhered to. (1)Opposition to continued US occupation is one of the main motivations of the insurgency and making it clear we will withdraw by a date certain may bank back the insurgency. (2)People like me distrust this administration's motivations and do not feel they have given up on the indirect allocation of Iraq's oil resource not their long term goal of using Iraq as a permanent base to project power in the Middle East and Caspian Sea areas - setting a date would commit the administration to withdrawal and allow some of the distrust to dissipate. (3)The war has already been lost and our goal should be to get out with the least cost possible in lives, in dollars, and in long term chaos in the region - a carefully constructed withdrawal offers the best chance of achieving this.

If you find my concern about the control of oil farfetched, you might want to read this 3 part study on the consequences of the kind of oil contracts that are being pushed through by the US and its Iraqi hangers-on.

Crude Designs Part I

Crude Designs Part II

Crude Designs Part III

I don't have much to add to this debate (though I'm following it with interest) but I will point out that both the UK and US forces have had tanks hit by very expensive missile systems and from what I've read these come from numerous sources. Some are indeed filched from Saddam's aresenal's and some are provided by Iran of course but bucket is not far wrong. A lot of the weapons systems being used are quite sophisticated and I've seen reports that some of the Anti armour missiles being used (especially) against US tanks are of the latest Russian designs and are not the bog-standard RPG's of popular imagination. Indeed, I very much doubt that an average RPG could seriously wound an M1 Abrams tank let alone destroy it.

I've also seen reports of 'the Iraqi's' using French built MILAN 3 anti tank missiles against British Challenger 2 tanks and although the Challenger 2's have yet to suffer a single loss to the enemy, the Americans with their numerous M1's have seen several tanks lost. I can't speak for the validity of this report, but if its true then it points to something other than insurgents simply armed with the remains of Saddam's old stockpiles...

Link.



All this is presented as fact but is actually conjecture. No one really knows how many foreign fighters there are in Iraq or how they are armed.


Its fair enough in that you correctly point out the disparity in costs for either side.... but not in as much as to the amount of funds available to either side.

The bottom line is, the USA can afford its massive spending and if it has to, then it could probably increase its military activity by means of conscription. Only political considerations prevent this.... not any real lack of funds or an inability to meet the terrorist threat.


Because of the logistics and the rate of attrition course. Waging war is always a serious drain on resources, even if your waging a guerilla campaign. What we see in Iraq is a war, what we see in London and the other other western targets outside Iraq are (at this point) only individual operations.

Would you be able to provide a link to your sources? I've read just the opposite. cite.
Sadly, the insurgents are getting smarter with their technology. They did start out by hitting us with RPGs and then opening fire from rifles. However, this isn't any good for them when you got an Apache hovering above ready to follow the smoke trail of the RPG they just fired. The insurgents have moved to IEDS (imporvised explosive devices). In april 2004, 19/104 soldiers KIA was due to IEDs. October 2005, 57/96 were done by IEDs. (October)
Here's by month

For the record, IEDs are cheap and the insurgents are getting smarter with them. Nor are they in short supply. Insurgents started by simply stacking anti-tank mines and burying them with a pressure based trigger. These didn't always go off and so they got smarter. They moved to cell phone triggers (which we blocked) to infrared (which we blocked) to hidden wires (which, can't be blocked). They've moved from mortar round IEDs to 155mm shell IEDs which will damage pretty much anything but an M1. To knock out the M1s they're using shape charged IEDs. The Palestinians were able to take out Israeli Merkavas (probably the best armored tank in the world) with simple shaped IED charges way back when.

So, it seems to me, the insurgents are going low tech and cheap and they're getting better at it. Not the other way around and not good news.

I don't see how this opposes what I wrote.

I am talking of specific attacks against main battle tanks using sophisticated missile systems.

No I can't back it up (I already wrote that I couldn't) I saw the information on Danish TV and I have yet to learn of a way to hyperlinking to television articles.


Yes, they are using the cheapest and easiest methods available, so are the Americans, though it might not look like it. All serious military forces do this, its SOP if you want to win.

This doesn't mean to say however that the insurgents are well able to keep up their campaign for any great length of time. As I pointed out, war is expensive. Even a 'cheap war' waged by volunteers.
For the foreign fighters in Iraq, there has to be an infra structure to arm, feed and house them. These things are not free. 2,000 foreign fighters might not seem like a lot when compared to the 130,000+ US troops in Iraq, but it is when you have to feed them, day in and day out.

Ok, maybe it doesn't contradict what you said, but I wouldn't consider IEDs "sophisticated missle systems." No need to argue semantics though

Quite right, they are not IED's.

I am refering to various TV news reports I have seen which detailed incidents where US and UK forces, when engaged with ground troops belonging to 'the enemy' were hit by expensive, state of the art French and/or Russian built anti armour weapons.

I am not talking about convoys and patrols being hit by roadside bombs, but actual combat operations, such as we saw in Falluja. My point is that whilst it is true the insurgency uses the cheapest means available it is also well funded enough to use expensive weapons when it feels it must.

Actually the exact opposite is true.

Prior to the fall of Hussein, the standard wire guided anti-tank weapon used by the Iraqi military was the French Milan system. The second most common was the Old Soviet Sagger. These are wire guided missiles, somewhat different from man-portable RPGs, which the Iraqis also had (RPG-7 and RPG-16). Seeing as Milans were the standard weapon of the Iraqi army, and that huge numbers of them vanished from weapons stockpiles after invasion, the fact that some terrorists are using Milans against US/ British tanks just confirms to me that most of the weapons are domestic in origin.




Well, bucket quoted a report that stated 700-2000, and I don't think I am being unfair in saying he stands on the rightist side of this argument, , so unless you can produce a report that contradicts it, I see no reason to disbelieve their findings, finding which in this argument both sides seem to have accepted.

Besides, even if the report is off, which I do not accept, it still gives us an idea of the scale and activities of these foreign fighters, that is to say very few, and involved in training and advisory roles, ie not combat roles and not getting shot at.




Actually the US cannot afford it, not for long at the present rate. The US may be the most powerful economy in the world, but an unexpected $400 billion is a lot to handle, and it continues to mount, as the deficit continues to climb. And as you say, whatever the reasons, consription is clearly not an option.

Regardless, and this is the key point, is there some real disparity here? I mean, as I have pointed out, nobody has shown the slightest evidence that ANY significant money is being spent by International terrorist organisations, let alone a lot. As I have pointed out, thanks to the unwavering support of Saudi, and the richness full of western fuel money, terrorist coffers are likely being filled to overflowing. I have presented three points that have not been touched:
-The very low cost of the insurgency, combined with the limited involvement of international terrorists
-The large and increasing funds available to terrorists
-unanimous reports speaking of the growth or Al Qaida over the last 4 years both in financial and manpower resources, exemplified by increased attacks around the world.

On the other hand, to support the argument that terrorists are spending an insurmountable amount of money in Iraq we have... what? Can anyone show me ANY evidence, any at all, that the war is even crimping the style of international terrorists?




Sorry, thats not an argument. It was claimed that fighting in Iraq costs far more than blowing up bombs in the west. Why exactly? Most of the attacks on the US in Iraq are suicide attacks, or cobbled together bombs, most of the attackers fanatics, most of the weapons local... What logistics exactly?

Exactly what are these 700 to 2000 people doing that needs to be so expensive?


The fact is, the argument that the war in Iraq is bringing in manpower from international terrorism has been disproven (even Bush Jr. admitted that in his latest speech), and I have seen nothing but assertions that somehow it is tying up international terrorist finances, when every report on Al Qaida says the exact opposite.

Should the US set a timetable for withdrawal and implement it?
I chimed in earlier on this topic and I see no change in the debate... time has nothing to do with successful engagement with an enemy. The President has a plan for troop withdraw... indicating the military commanders closest to the battle will determine conditions on the ground to enable our forces to depart. I fail to understand how time can be interjected into a battle. Failure isn’t an option... if anyone thinks failure is an option then they should explain in detail the “Plan to Deal With Failure” strategy.

No member of congress has defined such a plan that is as well scripted as the President’s and until a majority define such a plan I think we should stick with the President’s plan, which isn’t based on a decorated Colonel’s judgment. THINK... Bush is relying on the Commanders on the ground, all of which are higher rank and more brilliant than the partial suggestion by the cut and run chunky old former war hero. Who will have to fix the screwed up mess if the middle east spirals into civil and cross border conflicts if we withdraw without a victory? The UN wont do it, Europe wont do it... who will fix it? What if Iran annexes Iraq if we leave early? Who will fix it...the commanders on the ground or someone with a finger on a button?

So who is the authority desiring setting a timetable for withdraw? I see no majority in the Republican nor the Democratic Party. Who will demand the US set a timetable, the President says he doesn’t follow polls? Could someone please draft a timetable where victory is accomplished? Or, if no victory a plan for failure? Who will order the troops to return to battle in Iraq after an early exit that goes wrong?
Has the invasion and occupation made Iraq a new incubator of terrorism which requires a continued American presence in order to confront it?
I can’t comprehend the ignorance to this assumption... Did the invasion of Korea cause an incubator for China to join in with North Korea during the Korean Conflict? Should we have debated cutting and running? And, if we had cut an run in Korea and the North Koreans and Chinese decided to settle a score with Japan should a new CIC President send in the Commanders on the ground to fix it or just let them continue? And when the Koreans and China visited us on our ground who would stand behind the CIC that cut and run?
Is there another option?
I see no other option than I did earlier than if the plan to cut and run on a timetable that doesn’t include victory then we must return force with nuclear for the soldiers cannot be duked back to back. Or would you send your son the second time around to fix the early cut?

The crux of the crippling problem with this line of thought. Of course failure is an option, because we live in 'reality'. The refusal to understand that failure might be an option is what led the Govrnment and military to simply ignore obvious and ongoing failure in Vietnam far longer than they should have.

My point from the beginning is that there IS an end point in Iraq, thats when the government revolts and orders the US out regardless of the situation, as happened in Vietnam. That time is still a ways off of course, but one only needs look at the opinion polls and the rumblings in House and Senate to see that the pattern has begun.

Pretending that this possible end state does not exist is just ignorant. Furthermore if that happens, the departure will be sudden and slap-dash, and like in Vietnam, leave no time to make preparations for the survival of what is left behind.

If there is a leave-by date, then there is a timeframe which the military and government leaders will have an incentive to follow, there is a deadline people must work towards. Heck, it might even pacify the increasingly loud shouts of opposition to know the government is NOT commiting itself to a potentially enless situation.

There already is a troop withdrawl deadline, the problem is nobody knows when it will be that the US public finally gets tired of money and lives flowing down a tube. Even the most hawkish cannot deny that given a maintenance of the status quo, this will eventually happen. Now I am willing to admit that success in Iraq is possible, no matter how likely.

Why is it so impossible for the far-right to admit that it just might be possible that, like South Vietnam, the new reality in Iraq might just not be governable along the lines the US hopes?



Well, technically, the US went into the war with the objective of total victory, and it was only after tens of thousands of deaths and 2 years of stalemate that they abandoned those goals and compromised for what was then the status quo. Not the best example to support your argument at all.

Oh, its also totally inappropriate and uncomparable to the current situation, where we are not dealing with states at all. Again, try Vietnam as an example.



Sadly here it is hard to make out what you meant by this, and as such it is hard to know if your suggested use of nuclear force was a joke or not.


Remember my earlier comment. If the US does leave and the state falls into anarchy or Islamicism, wheither they leave through a deadline or through the will of the US people, please remember that the fault for this lies NOT with the US for pulling out, but rather with the US for invading in the first place, as neither Islamicism nor Anarchy was possible without this ill-planned invasion.

Vietnamese general officers clearly stated they were ready for surrender had it not been for the hope given by the anti-war and the public opinion on the conflict. I might add in leaving Vietnam we as a nation had a significant regional interest in the outcome. In Iraq we DO have an interest for if Iran annexed Iraq and then annexed Kuwait they could make deals for oil with the remaining members of the UN Security Council outing the US.



It was a UN mission and the President ignored the advice of the Commander on the ground who wanted to make the border China on the Yallo River.

We are dealing with states to include Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.



So what you are saying is the Democrats will be able to blame the Bush administration when Iran annexes Iraq and Kuwait and employees a nuclear base to control world oil prices. They allow terrorist to train to destroy American interest all around the world to include the mainland US. What a deal we can blame Bush and those who “he tricked” into fighting this war. Do you think America people wouldn’t support a CIC using Nukes if the oil was turned off for their SUV’s and Iranian based terrorist were blowing up elementary schools? It is quite clear they have already proven with the cut and run they will not face the enemy face to face to see the job done.

Slip out the back Jack... make a new plan Stan... so what is the plan for failure other than we get to blame Bush?

What evidence do you have that they are not? And you have yet to address my other point that the nationality or citizenship...or foreign or non-foreign status is irrelevant. Are you claiming that everyone in Iraq who fights for Jihad and who supports OBL is in fact a foreigner? If that is the case then you also have some onus to offer up some evidence. Why do you have to be foreign to be a terrorist? And are there not any Iraqi jihadists?

We are not given much cemented evidence on the finances of the terrorists movements as they don’t readily disclose their information.


Well I think that is extremely low of a figure. According to the 9/11 commission they estimated that al Qaeda spent 30 million a year on operations pre 9/11. Do you believe they have had to decrease or increase their spending since then?

No we don’t agree the US is doing little about it..I offered you a more rational argument to use than it is ignored or kept secret. That was not me agreeing with you just assisting you. If you read the article I linked to you would know that I feel the US is proactive and is doing something. Could you please address my true argument and use my source for reference?
Saudi Arabia and the Fight Against Terrorist Financing
We have such a like-minded counterterrorism ally in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is clear that the Saudi government “gets it” when it comes to terrorism. The Saudis have been confronted with the horror of suicide attacks on their own soil, and have seen how the virtuous intentions of charity can be corrupted for the support of terrorism and terrorists.



Saudi oil reserves are state owned. Do you have any proof that the Saudi state gov is the main financial supporter of al Qaeda in Iraq? The 9/11 commission found no such connection. As I said before I think it is more private funding then it is state funding the jihadists rely on. If you wish to disprove this then perhaps you should present some evidence.



Great then supply some current objective evidence to support this claim because your above post is neither. It is dated Dec. 2003. How does this show us what consequences the Iraq war has had on the GWOT to date? You think something has perhaps changed or progressed in the past 2 years?



Most of the oil in the ME is state owned so again which state is suppling the bulk of al Qaeda’s funding?
And your assumptions as to what war costs for the jihadis and the financial burdens they have is just as speculative.

Here I have a an article that discusses how the Pakistani government has chosen to deploy al Qaeda’s own tactics in gaining support in the tribal regions of South Waziristan
The sizable sums were given so that tribesmen could pay back loans from Al Qaeda. Hundreds of foreign fighters have been relying on local militants for shelter, supplies, and protection - and have paid them handsomely for it.
Paid them handsomely..what they aren’t just offering up their food, their homes and their security for free! Sheesh don’t they know this is jihad and it is their religious duty. Sorry I don’t think the whole region of the Middle East consists of crazed fanatical jihadis who believe that providing for the jihadists is what their god demands of them I think often it takes other coercions...like money or fear.

No... I think the saying... ain’t much in life that’s free... is universal.
Intelligence sources say that Al Qaeda lured tribal militants with huge sums of money, and registers were maintained for recording salaries for local fighters.
"The fighters used to get a 15,000 rupee [around $250] monthly salary. The commanders used to get advances running into millions for arms and ammunition, communication, and Land Cruisers," says a local intelligence official.

What ya think the going salary is in Iraq? More or less?

Tribesmen benefited by renting out their compounds for shelter and training camps, and providing food to foreign militants. "A chicken worth 60 rupees [a dollar] would be sold to Al Qaeda for 900 rupees [$15] and a bag of sugar worth 950 rupees [$16] would be provided for 9,000 rupees [around $150]," says tribesman Mohammad Noor. [Editor's note: The original version miscalculated the cost of sugar in US dollars.]
Similarly, a compound, which is usually rented out for $17 to $25, would be given to Al Qaeda as a training camp or hideout for around $10,000.
Most of Al Qaeda's money was transferred from Arab countries through hawala, a parallel banking system that exists on the black market.
Some locals even witnessed Al Qaeda operatives roaming around South Waziristan with bags full of dollars.
And how much you think the local Iraqis charge the foreign jihadis for sugar?
Your assumption that these mass murderers are not only welcomed but entirely paid and accommodated for by the local Iraqis is very doubtful and unsupported.


Well I suggest you read the article in it’s entirety and you will have a better understanding of it’s meaning rather then just pulling numbers out without context. I have quoted several times the last piece of the article you highlighted...I addressed much of this in my responses earlier...


I am not a he I am a she and the figure is an estimate...so moif is right we have no idea. I have already admitted that much of what we suspect or believe is or is not true of al Qaeda and their operations is speculative. You keep acting like you have the proven argument..how? How are you able to firmly determine what is and is not true of a underground, secretive organization?



Vermillion you keep claiming that the terrorists have just gobs and gobs of money and you base this on the very unsubstantiated claim that al qaeda and the likes are state supported. Which states? Where is your evidence? You also completely ignored the argument that this war is not only being fought in Iraq but internationally and that the financial aspect is very important and it is being addressed. I offered you evidence of how the US has been addressing this in regards to KSA and I don't think you even bothered to read it. On top of all that they have had their safe haven removed..they have had their state supported security taken away and now must roam around the back countries with "bags full of dollars" buying their way around at inflated prices. Meanwhile a well armed, highly trained army is hunting them down. How is their own battle not a drain too? How has it not distracted them as well? And how has their own heavy handedness not been costly?

I think the funding issue is a debate that isn't going to get anyone really far. Terrorists organizations rely heavily on the "Hawala" system which is an already set up, very extensive, paperless, world wide network. Asking anyone to get a bank statement for Al-Qaeda is impossible. Pointing out how many "charities" the Saudi's shut down isn't going to do you any good because 2 more pop right up. So we really don't know for sure if we're doing a good job stopping financial resources or if anyone is hurting for cash.

FYI:


more here

You are right psyclist the funding or financial aspect of this war regarding the jihadis is a hard debate to have because it is so speculative and unknown. But I do believe that jihadis do depend on private funds more than state funds. And I think that how the people of the ME perceive and feel about al Qaeda, OBL and militant Islamist tactics plays an important role in how those private funds are raised. The article I posted that discussed the changing trends in the ME used a Pew poll for it's findings...
While support for suicide bombings and other terrorist acts has fallen in most Muslim-majority nations surveyed, so too has confidence in Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. In Lebanon, just 2% report some or a lot of confidence in bin Laden, and in Turkey only 7% do so.

In Morocco, just 26% of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden, down sharply from 49% in May 2003. In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split, with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden and 37% saying they have little or none; that represents a major shift since 2003, when 58% expressed confidence in bin Laden.
source

And I believe it has fallen even greater since the Jordan bombings and the other rampant slaughterings.

And even if you do not believe that KSA has seriously or effectively addressed the terrorist activities in their country it does not matter as they have claimed that the largest deterrent to terror funding and harboring has been public opinion.....
A top Saudi security source reckons that 80% of the country's success in staunching violence is due to such shifts in public feeling, and only 20% to police work.


A measure of this can be seen, visually, in the hundreds of people who protested against Zarqawi outside one of the hotels in Jordan. But the way to measure this in practice is much harder - for instance, in an increase in members of the public reporting on the militants to the police. That has happened a lot in Saudi Arabia - the tide of public opinion there has turned largely against al-Qaeda because so many Saudis have been killed by their actions.

source

I think I have made it clear that I am in the camp of those who favor a near term planned withdrawal and that I have voiced my reasons in previous posts. Today I encountered an article by Michael Schwartz in which he attempts to answer 10 arguments often advanced by that 36% of the public still backing a "stay the course" position. It isn't comprehensive but does offer some good arguments. (See Top Ten Reasons for Staying In (Leaving) Iraq). Be sure to scroll down to the main article.

TedN5,

Interesting take. I liked the different view that getting out of Vietnam in 1965 or 1968 would have avoided the blood baths that happened after we did get out. During those years, the conservatives insisted on not changing the course of the war, that we needed victory because that was the only acceptable alternative. Johnson was completely clueless as to what was going on. He had no interest, wanting instead to pursue his domestic agenda while the war sucked down our resources. Then Nixon got in and messed up. Carter took the hit from the previous administrations' failures, and so goes history.

But, this is speculation. As speculation goes, it carries some sense to it and so I find it interesting. Paralleling what we ar