Yes Blackstone, because THAT was the substance of my point. Clearly that obviously colourful idiom was the substance of the issue at hand.

I mean some on here, if you don't intend to debate seriously, why post?



You would, of course, be wrong.

Does the senior intelligence official trump a marine in Iraq or not? I have no idea. I just thought it was interesting you left out the entirely contrary opinions clearly cited in the very same article in your first post. I am, as you said, pitting one against the other. You just ignored and deliberately omitted all the ones that didn't support your opinion.



I think it does quite nicely. AQ exists in Anbar province (which I have never denied) and they are neither the largest or most dominant group.



Actually, this was discussed back when it happened 3 months ago. The staged military parades, which were NOT done by AQ but by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organisation of seven different groups, ONE of which is AQ in Iraq. The article YOU quoted says thatm, funny you missed quoting that point as well.




Where did you get that from your article? Yes AQ have staged some bloody attacks, and they are a strong percentage of the suicide bomings. They have been for three years, yet the attacks they launch have not increased in number, in fact there have been fewer in 2006 than there were in 2004. Indeed, the famous Zarquawi documents painted a very bleak picture of AQ in Iraq, and the lack of progress they had made after three years of fighting.



Yes. According to the polls, yes they do.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1003410658
"By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.

Since not long ago you were talking about how a soldier on the ground in Iraq would know FAR better than some random 'analyst', I assume you believe the same thing faced with these strongly held opinions from the Iraqis, who last I checked were also on the ground in Iraq?




Yes. When YOU do it (first) its perfectly acceptable. But when someone else responds the same way, its laughable and ironic. So noted.



But as the 3000th soldier will likely be killed tomorrow (Current count is 2999), I'm sure they, as well as the 25,000 total combat casualties and additional 20,000 non-combat casuatlies in Iraq would be facinated to hear exactly why withdrawal is simply not an option. So would the large and increasing Majority of Americans who want the US out of Iraq. So would the majority of US troops who want out of Iraq. So would the majority of Iraqis who want the US out of Iraq. Don't let this unanimity of opposition sway you Blackstone, I'm sure your clear, specific and precise arguments about why withdrawal is not an option (if we ever hear them) will win them all over...

Not just "colorful", but also completely false. Al-Qa'ida has made it quite clear that it does not regard Iraq as a sideshow.


More irony. You've just concluded, without explanation, that the anonymous official (not "analyst", as you falsely claimed further down) trumps the highly seasoned Marine on the ground in Iraq, right after telling us that you had "no idea" if that would be the case.


The largest, most visible, and most dominant of which is AQ in Iraq.


Where it said, "once-disparate Sunni insurgent groups have portrayed themselves as increasingly unified, with political as well as military goals."


Do you? Is there any historical parallel that would suggest this would be the outcome?

If not, then it looks to me like a classic case of scapegoating the outsider for one's own shortcomings. Just get rid of "those people", and everything will get better.


As usual, perfectly backwards. I wasn't the one making snide remarks about "debating debating". That was what made it laughable and ironic.

How Ted-like of you. Points which have been repeatedly and soundly defeated in other threads you now resuggest as though that had never happened.

Firstly, your statement is patently factually false, as has been demonstrated before. But let us be clear, regardless of the importance AQ may place on the few thousand forign fighters struggling away in Iraq, what is factually and patently clear is that is IS a sideshow. AQ was pressed and pressed hard, was suffering the wrath of the US and the efffects were obvious, los of numbers, loss of funding. Then the US changed targets and went into Iraq, and because of the removal of pressure AQ has been given breathing room. It has refunded, regrown and is now more powerful than it ever was. This is a DIRECT RESULT of the iraq war. I don't care if you don't LIKE that fact, but it is a fact nonethe less, confirmed independently by three seperate studies, performed by the IISS, the CIA and the Pentagon, all of which have been accepted universally. Because of these facts, the NIE (the combined security and intelligence agencies in the US) concluded ear;ier this year that the Iraq war has made the US LESS SAFE and has increased the threat against it from international terrorism. Don't argue with me, argue with them if that awkward yet unimpeachable fact destroys your entire unevidenced assertion about the importance of Iraq.



As to the rest of your post Blackstone, forgive me, but you bore me. You ignore every point of substance and instead focus on quoting single lines that you think you can make fun of or insult (usually poorly). I mean just look at what you responded, to and then look at what you have snipped out and ignored in my last three posts. PERFECT demonstration of my point. That simple examination of your posts makes my case for me most eloquently.

I have no interest in debating in that manner. I know already that you are good at being insulting, I was curious to know if you are equally good at factually defending your points. Apparently you are unwilling to engage on that level.

Well, if I respond and this goes on (as it will as you always must have the last word), the thread will be reduced to snide insults on irrelevant points that you seem to enjoy so much and will be closed. I am also have the capacity to be insulting, and am not very good at resisting being baited, and I sometimes in the past have made the mistake of lowering myself to your level. For that I apologise, but I won't do it anymore.

Sorry, I wanted to debate a very interesting issue, and playing your game simply does not interest me.

The only other thread where we discussed the significance of al-Qa'ida in Iraq to any detail was this one. There, I asked you repeatedly if you thought that leaving Iraq would make al-Qa'ida weaker, and repeatedly, you refused to give me a straight answer. And then ultimately, you did exactly what you're doing here, namely, play the "moral superiority" card and storm off the thread.

A couple of other significant points which you either declined to address or downplayed beyond the point of implausibility:

- The well documented evidence I provided showing that, even among the mildest assessments, al-Qa'ida is a significant force in Iraq, is becoming more significant as time goes on, and stands to become much more significant if strife between Sunnites and Shi'ites gets much worse.

- My question to you asking if you thought that if we leave, the violence in Iraq will go down. It's both a counterintuitive and counterhistorical notion. If we leave, you can count on one of two outcomes: 1. Ethnic cleansing if not genocide of Sunnites by Shi'ites on a massive scale, far beyond anything we've seen there so far. Or 2. The only thing that would have any chance of preventing outcome #1 once we leave: the establishment of an Islamic State in Sunniland, with al-Qa'ida basically running the show. Your only counterargument to this is to weakly protest that there isn't "evidence" that this would happen. Yeah, no evidence at all other than history itself.

Now you ask for alternatives to "honorable withdrawal". Well, one has already been proposed and is making the rounds: an increase in combat (as opposed to support) troop presence in Iraq from the current 25,000 to 45,000, as U.S. commanders on the ground have been asking for, in order to help provide security for the population. This, many observers (including those who've supported the war) have acknowledged, had been largely neglected up to now. We do have success stories, though, but unfortunately they've been limited because manpower has been limited. And we also have commanders who've developed the knack for earning the confidence of the locals. To wit:


In addition to this we've seen evidence that, at least in Anbar, al-Qa'ida has grown stronger, not because of opposition to U.S. troop presence, but because of concern that U.S. troop presence will not last.

Now many opponents of the war have stated that the 6-8 month timeframe for this troop surge is not long enough, and that's corroborated by a number of experts who support the war. But the opponents who make this statement are effectively conceding one important point: If a longer term is desirable, then that would have to mean that the troops would be doing more good than harm by being there. Otherwise, they'd be saying that 6-8 months is too long. With this in mind, the harm that would result from this move would be seen after the troops are withdrawn, not while they're there. While they're there, if success stories like Tal Afar are any indication, we'd have the ability to pacify a good portion of the countryside. Once that happens, political support for keeping them there longer has a chance of improving. As Col. McMaster alluded to, this is much more a propaganda war than anything else. Securing the lives of people there is a good way to make progress on that front.

Firstly, that's an interesting interpretation of events.

In fact the truth is I DID answer, I said that we did not know what effect the US departing would have on AQ in Iraq, seeing as a huge percentage of the 'Insurgency' hates AQ as much as the US does. How was that unclear for you?

Secondly, to read that other thread and then accuse ME of refusing to give a straight answer is laughable. I asked you HOW many times to address the reality that AQ International has grown stronger and more powerful as a DIRECT RESULT of the war in Iraq. You refused to, as well as refusing to engage on half a dozen other factual points, preferring to ignore them completely and answer only points you thought you could weakly make fun of. Sound familiar?

As to 'storming off the thread', I have to wonder. Do you REALLY believe that, or is that just a bit of verbal spin you are trying to put on the situation to make yourself look better?




OK, let us be VERY clear on a few facts here, shall we?

Firstly You have dont NOTHING OF THE KIND. You have shown that AQ is one of many forces in Iraq, and that in at least ONE Iraqi province they are not completely irrelevant. You have not shown they are growing, you have not shown they are a major threat to the nation.

The fact is the US government themselves said (admittadly a year ago now) that AQ represented less than 2% of the total insurgency. The very documents caputured from an AQ safehouse stated openly that things were NOT GOING WELL for AQ. In fact as AQ continues to lose support, some tribat groups have actually formed dedicated forces to hunt them down, such as the 'Anbar Revenge Brigade', a militia forces which exists only to kill AQ. http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/articl...ticleid=2369940

Militia groups which oppose the government and central control, like Sadr, have partnered with the government in order to wipe out AQ on numerous occasions. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/ar...s/20060922.aspx

(This of course did not stop you from insisting, again and again in another thread that Sadr was helping AQ.

This is one of at least SIX groups formed by militia and tribal leaders (in other words, by the Insurgency) to wipe out AQ, and it is part of the reason the captured AQ documents bemoan the loss of support. Thats AQ ITSELF concerned about the loss of support in Iraq. In documents YOU YOURSELF have used to support other points, yet seem quite willing to ignore now... http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/art...s/20060618.aspx

What then is the latest assessment of AQ in Anbar, which you have touted repeatedly?

Read 'AQ's last stand in Anbar', dated only a month ago.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/ar...s/20061124.aspx

Al Qaeda no longer boasts of a base in western Iraq. To do so would have to address the fact that most al Qaeda losses in the area have been at the hands of angry Sunni Arab tribesmen. (...) Al Qaeda knows it's losing its battle for western Iraq, which is one reason why they have shifted so many resources, especially cash and leadership, to Afghanistan.



Secondly, let us be clear here. The original argument in question is YOURS, stemming from your somewhat odd belief that AQ in Iraq is in danger of a takeover of the government, or your repeated claims that the US leaving would 'hand victory to AQ' and the like.

NONE of that you have evidenced at all, either here or in other threads.

Now though you have been singularily unable to show any evidence to back up your scare tactic about AQ taking over Iraq in the case of a troops withdrawal, What evidence do we have for the CURRENT influence the US presence has had on AQ in Iraq?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33038.pdf
In this view, which reportedly is shared by the Central Intelligence Agency in a recent assessment, the
U.S. involvement in Iraq has strengthened rather than weakened groups connected to or influenced by Al Qaeda.

So what do we know for sure? AQ Internationally is stronger because of Bush jr and his sideshow in Iraq. That is not debatable as it has been confirmed by three seperate studies including the CIA. AQ in Iraq is NOT irrelevant (nor did I ever claim they were) but they are most certainly weak, they are most certainly opposed by the majority of the Insurgency, and they are most certainly growing weaker, and MOSTLY AT THE HANDS OF THE IRAQIS. I emind you that this assessment agrees entirely with AQ's April 2006 assessment of itself as well. We also know that you have given NO evidence at ALL to support YOUR belief that AQ could somehow tage a 'takeover' or in fact, be any serious threat to the Irqi government at all, since the Pentagon assessed them at less than 2% of the insurgency.



Is this the best you have? Massive unevidenced assertions backed up by a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of my point?

I have said time and time again, I do not know what will happen if the US leaves. Certainly the ortion of the insurgency which is directed against the US occupation will vanish, and thus the violence will decrease by some amount. No whether the Insurgency will grow to fill that gap I don't know. Perhaps it will. But then, if your argument is 'the violence will increase without the US presence' then you are arguing a non-point. The violence has been steadily and unceasingly incresing WITH the US presence on the ground. So how exactly is the preence or absence of the US forces going to make any difference now, when they have failed to do so for almost 4 years?

Stop pretending the US is actually winning or making a serious difference as the staus quo, they are not. They are losing, the Insurgency is growing, and US soldiers are dying. You say that the violence may get worse if the US stays? That is a gauess, but even if it is TRUE, I counter with the following fact. Based un an unbroken, unceasing and utterly consistent record of the past 3 years and 9 months, I can GUARANTEE that the violence will CONTINUE to increase If the US stays.



Next, to continue the unevidenced guesses which have no basis in reality, you assert that the 'certain' next step if the US leaves is 'ethic cleansing' of Shis by Sunni.

Really.

And what do you base this on? Shia in Iraq have had the majority over Sunni for about 1000 years, and have managed to avoid the 'inevitable ethnic cleansing' you are so certain (yet unable to evidence) will occur. In regions in Iraq where the Shia have gained complete control unchalleneged by the US or the Iraqi government, such as Sadr City, there is no ethnic cleansing going on. There are deaths quads operating in Baghdad and a fw other cities targeting each other's religious membership, but that is in the midst of a struggle for political control.



Thats an interesting take. Everything I have read suggest 20,000 to 30,000 extra troops. Care to show us where you got 45,000 extra combat troops in Iraq?

Also, considering the number of active troops in Iraq over the last 3 years has fluctuated by as much as 50,000, and yet even at the high-points there is still nothing but a continued growth in the strength and power of the insurgency, can you explain how this force committed for 6 months will 'turn everything around'?



In conclusion, let me just make one final point. Apparently my last post had some effect. After post after post of yours utterly refusing to engage on any points of substance and just looking for weak ways to throw insults, this last post of your was somewhat more substantive and reigned in the personal attacks somewhat. Thank you. See how easy that is?

The discussion on the last two to three pages really has been off topic. Al-Qaeda's influence in Iraq has nothing to do with whether or not we can leave the war honorably. This is especially looking problematic as December 2006 was one of the worst months casualty wise. On top of that, we've just recently surprassed the 3,00 mark for war deaths for a nation which has of yet, to "run the show" on its own, despite having three years in which to get its act together.

Really? Then perhaps I misunderstood your question. What do you mean by "honorable" withdrawal, then? If it has nothing to do with whether or not al-Qa'ida will take over after we leave, then we could pack up and leave right now. What's so "dishonorable" about that, now that the term has been defined this way? What's even left to debate?

Anyway, I hope you'll forgive me if, while you're formulating an answer to that, I continue my discussion with Vermillion.



If you don't know what effect it would have, then you have little basis for boldly asserting that this is a "sideshow" in the fight against aQ. Not knowing what effect it would have means acknowledging the possibility (and it's more than just a remote possibility, as I've addressed above and will do so again below) of aQ setting up a permanent base there.


And like I told you there and will tell you here, I'll be plenty happy to address that point as soon as you can show how it's at all relevant to the question of what to do from here. Otherwise, this argument is just, to borrow a term, a "sideshow".


Wow. The Downplay Machine is certainly operating at full capacity here. Yes, "at least ONE Iraqi province" - which only happens to be the province where the insurgency is by far the strongest, with the possible exception of Baghdad (which it borders). And not only is aQ "not completely irrelevant" (love that spin), it is highly relevant. It is either a major player there (if you believe the anonymous intelligence official quoted in that WP article), or it is the dominant player there (if you believe Col. Devlin, the experienced Marine Expeditionary Force intel officer on the ground in Anbar).


I showed that their relevance is growing (I never asserted that their numbers were growing). And since you insist on making me repeat myself, here goes. We have this:


And this:


And these united groups, with al-Qa'ida at the head of them, were able to stage military parades in a string of Anbari towns on the same day, including Ramadi, the provincial capital, without challenge.


In terms of numbers of individuals, not in terms of the effect they have. Again, all this has been covered.


Whoa, whoa, where are you getting this "by the Insurgency" little parenthetical comment from? Are you automatically assuming that "tribal leader" = "insurgent"? After your own links show that the Sunnis fighting against al-Qa'ida have aligned themselves with the government in Baghdad and the Coalition? To quote your "Jamestown" link: "The Anbar Revenge Brigade is one of six groups that have promised to stop all forms of cooperation with al-Qaeda and form what they term 'The People's Cells' to oversee security. They have direct communication capabilities with coalition and Iraqi military forces (al-Hayat, January 27)." If only we could have some more "insurgents" like this.

So thanks for making my point for me. Our presence IS having a positive effect. To quote another one of your links: "But month-by-month, more tribes turned against al Qaeda and Baath. For the last year, as more American and Iraqi troops moved into western Iraq, the fighting became more intense." And it's clear from the context that they weren't referring to fighting between us and the tribes. We were fighting on the same side.

Now what would happen to their willingness to fight against al-Qa'ida - rather than make an accomodation with them in order to fight off what many of them consider to be the much greater threat, the Shi'ites - if we were to reduce troop presence? Again, I'm forced to repeat myself. See the first Washington Post link cited in this post. Read the paragraph quoted, and note further that the article states, "Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability." Not only does this help narrow down the uncertainty about what would happen, it's showing the disturbing trends that have been happening because our commitment and our will has been in question.


What about the portion of the insurgency that's directed against what the insurgency claims is the U.S. puppet government in Baghdad? And in any event, there's no historical lesson at all to suggest that it will have any calming effect on the internecine conflict within Iraq. Most historical lessons would sugget the opposite, in fact.


So you're just absolutely certain that the U.S. presence hasn't been putting a damper on the increase at all? If so, then what are you basing this very interesting conclusion on? If not, then what is your point, besides taking cheap shots at people who are trying to do something about the problem?


Shi'ites have not had a majority in the Ottoman Emprire and Abbasid Khalifate for that length of time. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, most of Iraq's political and military power was in the hands of minority Sunnites. This is the first time that Shi'ites have even had the opportunity to assert control there, and you know what they say about payback.

Even if the Shi'ites had had an opportunity in the past, genocide doesn't always occur when there's an opportunity. How long had the Armenians lived under Turkish rule before the Turks started massacring them? Something triggered it. And even while the WWI genocide of Armenians was taking place in their homeland, Armenians in Constantinople were basically left alone. So the fact that Sunnites in Baghdad aren't being ethnically cleansed doesn't mean that they don't face a credible threat in Anbar.

That is to say, IF they weren't being ethnically cleansed in Baghdad. According to Robert Kagan: "However, sectarian strife is leading rapidly to sectarian cleansing and many of Baghdad’s mixed communities are being forcibly purified." OK, so on second thought...


I'll give you a chance to reread what I wrote. Upon closer examination, you should notice that I wasn't talking about 45,000 extra troops.


The only personal attack made in this exchange was your snipply little "How Ted-like of you" remark. Aside from that, my comments have been no worse than yours, so stop trying to pretend that they are.

Interesting how our rationale for "honorably" staying in Iraq has radically changed. Now we must defend the Sunnis against the power of the Iran influenced Shiite majority so Al Qaeda won't be encouraged to do the job for us and extend their influence. Talk about coming around full circle.

I wonder what the rationale will be tomorrow.

No on two counts.

Firstly, the fact that I cannot predict what will happen if the US leaves Iraq (and neither can you) does NOT mean AQ can take over the country, nor do I have to admit this. I suppose if we are going to get philosophical, yes it is POSSIBLE in the sense that anything is possible, as In is it POSSIBLE that I might get hit by lightning in three seconds.

two...

one...

Still here. Ah well, I will admit that is at least as possible. However your logical word-games aside, no, there is no chance of AQ taking over the country, now (despite my desperate begging for you to do so) have you ever provided the slightest evidence that they could. I looked down your post (as you said you 'would address it again' and you certainly asserted it again, but thats about all. You are really going to need to explain prcisely how a group that forms 2% of the insurgency and is actively hunted by most of the strongest Insurgent groups in Iraq is going to 'take over', or set up a permenant base.

There is simply NO BASIS for that assertion. I mean look at what you have been arguing, going through verbal calesthenics to try and prove AQ is 'not irrelevant', and 'growing stronger', despite the fact that AQ ITSELF says it is growing weaker. Yet even if you were correct, 'not-irrelevant' does not equate to ever cpable of taking over a country which is utterly hostile to it.



Let me spell it out for you. Your only concern in this entire debate seems to be the possible growth of AQ. That is the centre of your debate. Yet the only AQ you seem to care about is the small group in Iraq. They seem to be the sum-total of your concern for the organisation. Otherwise, why would you be insisting on a course of action (stand-still-and-lose) which would have unknown effect on AQ in Iraq, but has PROVEN to have the effect of strengthening AQ internationally?

I think that considering YOU have chosen to make this debate entirely about the strength of AQ, that my bringing up the strength of AQ is very relevant, wouldn't you say?




Riiiight.

Do me a favour will you? Indulge me.

Go back to my last post, the one you just answered.

See that big section in the middle, the one where I made all the argumentation and supported my case with no less than seven sources, including sources YOU have used in the past.

You know the section I am talking about. Its the bulk of my last post, and its the section you snipped out and decided to ignore.

Go back and read that. Answer it, and all the evidence which all proves you wrong. Don't just snip it out, ignore it and pretend it wasn't there. Then perhaps we can talk about this point.



OK, so we agree that the number of AQ in Iraq are not growing. Thats a start.

Again, when you get around to dealing ith the actual argumentation and evidence I provided (you know, that section you chose to ignore) then we an discuss the rest.




Yes it has. They are LESS than 2% in terms of numbers, but as they use suicide bombing more often than other groups, they do punch above their weight. So what, maybe 4% of the insurgency effects? And that very fact (as aI laid out in all that evidence you chose to completely ignore) that very fact is what has turned most of the militia groups against them.



Close, but not quite. They have aligned themselves with the central government AGAINST AQ. But only that. Sadr has also aligned himself with the central government against AQ, and has cooperated in that venture several times, (despite your repeatedly insisting Sadr is 'helping' AQ) but is certainly no ally of the government and is at the centre of the insurgency.

The only thing all these groups seem to agree on in fact, is how much they hate AQ. Good evidence for your argument that AQ can just 'take over' sometime soon, eh?



Again, nice try, but only by instering information that is not there can you assume that. They are working alongside the US and Government forces against a common foe, yes. But how many of these militias reconise the central government? Thats right, almost none. How many of them have also been sniping in seperate incidents at US forces? Thats right, all of them.




You keep saying that, you keep being 100% wrong. If you are going to insist on that silly point, then fine, back it up. Please show me ONE, that is just ONE SINGLE CASE, EVER, where the withdrawal of an occupying power did not lead to an immediate drop in violence, at the very least in th short term. After all, you seem quite comfortable lecturing about 'historical lessons' so I'm sure given your deep knowledge in the field you can demoinstrate for all examples of your point. Well?



Please.

Firstly, so NOW you are saying that the situation is going to crap, but YOU believe that the US presence is keeping the situation from going to crap EVEN FASTER. Well then you, my friend, are the one who has to provide some evidence of that, that is how things work. Besides, even if you could evidence that, its a pretty hollow point. "Yes, the US has been utterly unable to do anything about the complete disaster which has been unfolding in Iraq, but we have made the country sink into utter chaos marginally slower!" Well break out the ticker tape.

Secondly, "Taking cheap shots ate people trying to do something?"

Nice verbal posturing for the peanut gallery. sadly it is so blatantly and obviously false that it beggars the imagination. I am in fact suggesting a problem to the solution, phased withdrawal of US forces. I have also been begging, I say again BEGGING people to provide feasable solutions, to suggest them. For God's sake I ended almost every single post in other threads pleading for a solution. So please do NOT make such absurd comments like that, they do nothing except demean you.

What I am doing is pointing out the simple and basic problems with the fantastically flawed suggestion being duscussed now by Bush Jr, the architect of this disaster. I am suggesting that the only deasable and practicable solution is phased withdrawal. And I note that the only objection you have been able to muster is that is the US puills out, AQ mill take ver the country, an assertion you have been utterly incapable or unwilling to provide the slighest evidence or justification for.



So, when asked to justify your wild assertion that a US pullout would 'inevitably' lead to ethnic cleansing, your answer is... "well, it might happen, I guess.. just cause it has never happened before..."

Sound argumentation.

So based on that peformance, I asume you are withdrawilng your assertion that a US withdrawal would 'inevitably' lead to ethnic cleansing.




Fair enough, my bad. So we have the same question I have been posing since day 1. Since the total troops in Iraq has already fluctuated by more than 55,000 over three years, how can anyone possibly claim that adding 20,000 troops for 6 months will turn this utter disaster around? In the other thread I asked a very simple series of questions about these new troops, and despite a lot of fussin', nobody has been able to answer them.

Phased withdrawal is the only practicable answer. The only possible effect I can see of committing more troops to the morass is more US bodybags. But if people don't really care about the 25,000 US casualties including 3000 US dead to date, I guess they are unlikely to care about a bunch more...



Oh, and I look forward to when you get around to dealing with the entire middle part of my last post. (you know, the part with all the argumentation and the evidence, you know, the part you snipped out and decided to completely ignore. That part.) I'm sure you were planning to do so. It would be a shame to see you slip back to your trend of ignoring anything substantive and only adressing points which you feel you can use to make weak barbs. You were, after all, making such GOOD progress...

Before I begin in earnest, I just want to establish one thing, that holds for this and all other discussions we might have: If I say, "I never asserted that A is true", that does NOT mean you then get to say, "OK, so you agree that A is false". We clear on this? Good. Let's roll the tape.


If you can provide a statement where I asserted that al-Qa'ida would "take over the country", I will most humbly retract it, because that is not my position. To reiterate - the two results of a pullout I'm positing are either: 1. Massive ethnic cleansing or genocide, or 2. Establisment of an Islamic state in Anbar with al-Qa'ida pulling the strings.


It was saying this about itself before the sectarian strife had reached a fever pitch. As that strife grows, it plays more into the hands of aQ in Iraq. This has been covered already, and rather amply.


This is what I'm failing to get through to you: If, as you admit, you don't know what the effect would be on al-Qa'ida's strength (either internationally or in Iraq) from ceasing our present course of action, then you don't know that the course of action is strengthening al-Qa'ida, above and beyond what would be the case with a different course of action. Can I possibly make this any plainer?


Actually I count five sources, not seven. In any event, I looked over those links when you first posted them, and just to absolutely sure I didn't miss anything, I looked them over closely again in response to this latest request from you. I didn't see anything which contradicts the very widely accepted view that Anbar is where the insurgency is the strongest. If I still missed it, could you please point it out?


Thank you, in fact, I did look around at your links a second time, and indeed I had missed something. Where you made your FAS link, you quoted the following sentence: "In this view, which reportedly is shared by the Central Intelligence Agency in a recent assessment, the U.S. involvement in Iraq has strengthened rather than weakened groups connected to or influenced by Al Qaeda." The sentence that immediately follows is most illuminating: "The reputed CIA assessment says that Iraq is now playing a role similar to that of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation - a training ground for Islamic militants who might travel elsewhere after the Iraq conflict winds down."


You really think you can get a lot of mileage out of that lie, don't you? Tell you what, then: Why don't you post my exact words, and then right underneath, tell us all - yes or no - whether or not you agree with the actual statement that was made. After all, I wouldn't want you to stand accused of doing what you love to accuse me of doing, namely cite "single lines you think you can make fun of or insult".


I looked at your cites a few times now, and I don't see anything to back that up. The closest some of them have come is in saying that the groups turning against al-Qa'ida were once resistance groups, but not a single one of these articles has stated that they have engaged in acts of insurgency, either against the central government or the coalition, since turning on al-Qa'ida. Yes, they want us out. I want us out of there, too, once we've taken care of al-Qa'ida. What your cites have indicated is that these Sunnites have determined (most rationally) is that the best way to get us to leave is to scatter aQ in Iraq to the four winds.

From your first link: "Groups like Anbar Revenge Brigade have come to the conclusion that the best way to reduce the coalition troop presence in their home regions is to flush out al-Qaeda elements in their cities." And: "The Anbar Revenge Brigade was formed with Iraqi government and coalition military backing and support through a 'security committee' initiative that attempts to place security responsibility in the hands of local residents."

From your second link: "The biggest gain for the coalition is that they will now have forces on their side that know the terrain in al Anbar province."

Where, pray tell, is your evidence that these tribes are continuing the insurgency at the same time they're fighting al-Qa'ida? You've provided zippity-squat as far as I'm able to see.


First of all, as can be clearly seen from my quote box, I'm referring to internecine violence. During WWII, the Japanese occupation of China resulted in a temporary cessation of hostilities between the Communists and Nationalists (though there still were clashes, particularly in '40 and '41). Hostilities resumed once the Japanese left.

Another example is the Palestinian areas of Israel. Hamas and Fatah had long been at odds with each other, but kept a lid on it as long as they perceived a common enemy in the Israeli authorities. Once Israel pulled out, it wasn't long before the two of them descended into virtually open warfare with each other.

Now can you think of a single historical instance where the withdrawal of a foreign force did lead to a drop in internecine conflict?


Just Wow. After how many posts of you whining and moaning to me about allegedly quoting you out of context just so I could make fun of you, you do exactly what you complain of. Look at what you quoted, and then go back to my actual post to see everything I wrote in that segment (particularly the punchline at the end). What you wrote here is beneath reply.


Before I answer, I just want to ask (just to make sure), did you get the distinction I was making between combat troops and support troops? It's an important distinction to keep in mind in this discussion.

Just a guess but it might be possible that the Shiite might be attempting to push the AQ in Iraq towards linking up with the Sunni due to Sunni being a minority thus attempting to damage or destroy any position they have with the idea of our occupation and goals.

Not saying that this is what’s going on, just a guess. I am going from the idea that our bad planning and execution is or aided in spawning the current situation in Iraq, Shiite was dominated for quite sometime along sectarian lines and the fact we again cannot secure Iraq and force or bring the various groups to the table for talks about a federalized Iraq.

The more Iraq slips into sectarian violence the less of a chance we will have to stop a civil war, bring Iraq to a federalized Iraq and have a force of Iraqis trained and ready to take our place. The more the sectarian violence grows the more this damages everything we would like to do.

If the Shiites cannot come to hold any faith in our ability, along with the Sunnis or Kurds, and these groups cannot reach trust with each other, which is something I am sure AQ in Iraq has been playing on, we could in hypothetical spend eternity in Iraq or to the point in which Iraq is so devastated it no longer matters.

We destroyed Iraq’s current infrastructure under saddam with little or no plan to quickly emplace another one that would have any means of stability. After this we did not have enough of a force to contain the chaos of this. This has simply spiraled out into the current situation which is nothing more then sectarian violence, an insurgency and a place that the U.S could never hope to combat terrorism.

To me anymore the only thing that makes sense is to options. Put over 500,000 combat troops on the ground and force a bloody submission and hope it sticks, or simply pull up and go home. To me the idea of using regional force is not going to matter to much because every one of those nations will have to be able to agree on something. I think terrorism being a product of such would best be stopped on our soil by a better defense and globally by such, and that leaders in the mideast don’t see it as a threat yet because the radicals have not attacked them or they sell out for protection against such. You would have to get any nation that comes aboard to agree to some game plan for Iraq’s future… I just don’t see it is all.

Al-Qaeda wasn't mentioned in the original questions, so yes, there was a misunerstanding, though it was not on my part.







Good question-that's exactly what some democrats and the anti-war crowd is asking.

The key as you say and we agree is securing the populous and not just running after the AQ and insergents. The 25K troops is not going to do it alone it would involve a change in strategy to focus on this issue as well as training the Iraq military faster. I also believe we need to pressureal-Maliki to talke a hard line with the Shiite militia or get out of office. He is over his head and knows it. IMO he is looking for an excuse to resign and we should give him a push.

And most importantly:
3.)Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?



I've raised this point on AD several times before and no one's ever fielded it. SO I'LL CAPITALIZE RANDOMLY.

George McGovern and William Polk wrote, last fall, "A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now." It was published in Harper's, still selling in stores. Whatever you, me, your neighbors and The Four Tops may think of withdrawal, I've yet to see a more fully-fleshed out alternative to the current strategy -- if you can call it that -- unfolding in Iraq.

I'll run through it.

Polk believes that the insurgencies -- Shia and Sunni -- are developing along a historically familiar pattern, i.e. Ben Bella in Algeria, Tito in Yugoslavia, Ho Chi Mihn in Vietnam or Mao in China. The primary goal, for both Sunni and Shia, is to get the occupying power to leave. "At that point," says Polk in an interview with countercurrents.org, "the leaders often turn on the guerrillas and suppress them. That is what Eamon De Valera did in Ireland and Ben Bella did in Algeria. They can do this because they or their movements have accomplished the fundamental aim of the insurgency, getting rid of the foreigners, so that many of their supporters are satisfied and want to return to normal life. That, I believe, could be critical in Iraq once the Americans leave."

And there is another reason why the US needs to leave, a quote from the Baltimore Sun by George McGovern:



In short, our activity in Iraq (as we liberals have been tryina tell you guys all along hey hey hey) is inspiring more terrorism outside Iraq. Its radicalizing the Muslim street at a time when the exact goal of the Jeffersonian branch of the War On Terror was to do the opposite.

The paradox is that the insurgency needs to get rid of the foreign occupiers, to move on as a society. At the same time, Iraq, is not a state set up to succeed; for that reason, we need to replace our occupation with an occupation that can create a functionally society in Iraq (rebuild roads, hospitals, and neighborhoods get Iraqis back into employment, keep electricity and water running), but not an occupation that will get in the way of Iraqis sorting out the new balance of power.

For that reason they call for a U.S. withdrawal, followed by the creation of a UN-supervised peacekeeping force drawn from heavily Muslim, Arab nations, or if not Arab, North African. The role of the peacekeeping mission would be oversee the reconstruction of Iraqi society, rather than engaging in counterinsurgency activity. For those familiar with the Guiliani approach on crime, its almost that kind of thing transplanted from the five boroughs to a war zone. Instead of playing a wack-a-mole game of clearing dangerous areas, only to return in a short matter of time, do this: Improve conditions for businesses to return to Baghdad, bring back the 1.5 million Iraqis who have fled the country, tackle unemployment, and hope that the insurgency deflates in mass popularity as these elements of society begin to return.

In addition they propose creating an Iraqi Reconstruction corps, paid for by the US, which will provide jobs to Iraqis.

Then they propose voiding all British and American oil contracts in the country as a means for Iraq to regain its economic footing, which hasn't been what it should be since Saddam kicked off his reign with the 8-year, disasterous war against Iran.

Finally, they propose a 10,000 dollar reparation to all families of civillian casualties: "This simple gesture of conciliation would go a long way toward shifting our relationship with Iraq from one of occupation to one of friendship." Reads the report.

The total cost is 17.25 billion dollars for the next two years, a minute fraction of the minimum 200 billion dollars spent, on average, every two years.



I can't link the report because I got it through Lexus Nexis, and its faded from most news providers web material. (It was printed back in October or so). But here's two places you can read more:

- very skeleton, somewhat unfair outline of the plan:

http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.d...ION02/612070318

- conversation with Polk:

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-zeese071206.htm

- Here's an argument against the plan, coming from all directions, the left:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/008763.php

- And heres a link to many more ideas:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

Vermillion:

You will have to forgive my belated reply, but not winning as fast and with as little cost as you would prefer is not losing, it is simply not winning as fast and with as little cost as you would prefer.

Now re things purportedly irrelevant, simply recall those famous words of the Irish patriot Terrence MacSwiney:

"I realised that most of you in the minority here would be loyal to us, if doing so did not threaten your lives; but that you lacked the spirit and the hope to join with us to complete the work of liberation so well begun. I allude to it here again, because I wish to point out again the secret of our strength and the assurance of our final victory. This contest of ours is not on our side a rivalry of vengeance, but one of endurance - it is not they who can inflict most but they who can suffer most who will conquer - though we do not abrogate our function to demand and see that evil doers and murderers are punished for their crimes."
***
"A man of moral force is he, who, seeing a thing to be right and essential, and claiming his allegiance, stands for it as for the truth, unheeding any consequence. It is not that he is a wild person, utterly reckless of all mad possibilities, filled with a madder hope, and indifferent to any havoc that may ensue. No, but it is a first principle of his, that a true thing is a good thing, and from a good thing rightly pursued can follow no bad consequence. And he faces every possible development with conscience at rest--it may be with trepidation for his own courage in some great ordeal, but for the nobility of the cause and the beauty of the result that must ensue, always with serene faith. And soon the trepidation for himself passes, for a great cause always makes great men, and many who set out in hesitation die heroes. This it is that explains the strange and wonderful buoyancy of men, standing for great ideals, so little understood by others of weaker mould. The soldier of freedom knows he is forward in the battle of truth, he knows his victory will make for a world beautiful, that if he must inflict or endure pain, it is for the regeneration of those who suffer, the emancipation of those in chains, the exaltation of those who die, and the security and happiness of generations yet unborn. For the strength that will support a man through every phase of this struggle a strong and courageous mind is the primary need--in a word, Moral Force.”

Now for the proverbial proof in the pudding, what is the circumstance? That some here say that 600,000 or so Iraqis have died. Meanwhile, we've lost 3,000 or so. But yet, you and some others advocate that we bug out and surrender the field [one here called the field the “Iraqi hell”]. And so you and some others prove once again that it is not those who can inflict the most but those who can suffer the most who will conquer. So while you might refuse to see the relevancy, you prove the point. And that’s why I called you defeatist, i.e., you’re not willing to endure and suffer and you apparently don’t understand or reject the notion of “Moral Force.”

In any event, we don’t otherwise project power well when all it takes is 3,000 or so dead over very nearly four years to cause us to run home to mother. Some might call such their escape from the “Iraqi hell”, but the predators among us will see it as running home to mother and act accordingly. Again, in that sense, you invite further attack.

For more on the purportedly irrelevant, once again re getting the other to be of the conviction that he will never win, from the man that Wertz calls a “fascist,” General Ariel Sharon, by way of Abraham Rabinovich’s The Yom Kippur War[:] The Epic Encounter That Transformed The Middle East, and this is related in relation to the day following the long first night of that war:

"General Mendler was relieved to see Sharon and to hear that the lead elements of his division were not far behind. Mendler was visibly weary. The situation on the front was unclear, he said. What remained of [Col. Amnon] Reshef's brigade was confronting the forward elements of the entire [Egyptian] Second Army. [Col. Dan] Shomron's brigade was opposite the Third Army. [Col. Gaby] Amir's brigade barely existed. Tanks losses were heavy [2/3 of the division's losses in tanks occurred during that long first night]. So were casualties. The Egyptians were now three to five miles east of the [Suez] canal, and their forces were streaming across the waterway without hindrance.
***
It was clear to Sharon what had to be done—a swift and concentrated blow by at least two divisions before the Egyptians fortified their bridgeheads. The attack could be launched the next day, Monday, when his and [Gen. Avraham] Adan's divisions would be in place. It was vital, Sharon believed, that the Egyptians be denied the feeling of success. The psychological factor was critical in war, and the Egyptians had to be thrown off balance by a swift counterattack. His aim, he would write, was 'to create in the Arabs a psychology of defeat, to beat them every time and to beat them so decisively that they would develop the conviction that they would never win.'"

As I said in my earlier post, the noted mindset is what we are looking to create in all who might wish us harm, and not only in Iraq, but across the globe. Sorry, but since the purported "fascist" has won all his wars while you and Wertz have won no wars, I’ll take Sharon's view over that of you and Wertz, and I'll again ask the question, how does our bugging out serve to create a psychology of defeat in those who might wish us harm? Hard to get them to think that they’ll never win when here you are conceding defeat, and when we aren’t even close to losing. Or as I otherwise put it, by way of a dead Abraham Lincoln, with you here conceding defeat, and claiming to speak for a majority America, why should they be willing to sit down and negotiate a just resolution of the current circumstance? The always and ever present cruel irony here is that those claiming to be all in favor of negotiation cannot even comprehend that their unwillingness to endure and inflict pain guarantees that there's no reason for the other side[s] to want to sit down and talk with us and some others about that just resolution, as they might as well just wait until we run home to mother and then they can take what they want.

There is otherwise no other way to say it, so I might as well simply say that to leave now is the act of a coward. Since you don't find Ensign Ro relevant, how about our commander of Yesterday's Enterprise, and her report that some of her crew wanted to go back to their time, and face certain death, because they didn’t feel all that good about running out in the middle of a fight. I suppose that the consolation here is to know that you can never be trusted to watch my back [on the premise that if you can run out on them, you can just as easily run out on me]. I won't be the only one drawing that consolation and that's truly a pity, since some might be willing to go more in our direction, but might not be willing to do so if they think that we'll leave them standing there alone when push comes to shove. How does that figure into your calculus of honor, or does it?

Lastly, while it may be foolish and/or irrelevant to you, the late Yerucham Amitai and I both understand that none of us will be worth a damn if we buy our lives at the cost of our conscience. And so as I said, we both know that the rather clear majority in Iraq would simply like to go about their more normal routine, and we also both know that the killing of such souls won't end with our departure, so with impending bug out, how are we not buying our lives at the cost of our conscience? So, sorry, friend, but maybe it's just that I'd like us to be worth something [and otherwise able to look ourselves in the mirror without despising our own image]. You might also wish to consider in your calculus of honor, the notion that with no bug out, our children won't have to learn that their fathers promised a certain people liberation only to throw them to the wolves when the going got tough.

Sorry, I lied. One more. Why do I think there's hope? Well, didn't we take out our porn and frog obsessed man in Panama? That was an invasion and toppling of a regime, yes, and was that so smooth that we all forgot about it? So who could say with any degree of confidence what would happen once Saddam's statue and now he himself has fallen? I mean, it could have went the Panama way, right [and it still can]? But that was the risk we took [there was never any question about the initial toppling of the regime] and so as I said, we bear the risk of loss and so ought to expect to pay up when the risk comes to fruition. At least that's the computation in my calculus of honor.

Whew- KT_ that is some seriously tortured logic you be usin' there on us poor, cowardly little liberals, who happen NOT to like fascists as much as you apparently

I mean, there are SOOO many things wrong with this post, it is hard to know where to begin-

you see, if you are the bad guy, and are so obviously not ONLY the bad guy in this deal- but also a horribly incompetant bad guy- it is best for everyone if you "bug out"

Saddam, he was a bad guy, sure- but he has killed no where near as many Iraqis now as the invasion has created- 600k and counting.

There was no honor in our going there- how is there to be honor in staying?

It is real conveniant, as usual, for the chickenhawks to keep crowing "oh, you want to cut and run"- when, as if, "stay and lose" is so much better.

You have not offered one iota of helpful dialogue here to actually change anything- you just want, apparently- either genocide of the Iraqis, which we are doing pretty good job of now, and doesn't seem to be helping the situation much - or, to stay put, and just see us lose money and men, men and money, every day.

So what is your solution? More troops? Unless it is like 600 thousand more- ain't going to make a bit of difference- as Vermillion so nicely pointed out, so how do you stop this hemoraghing of men and money?

Apparently- being a "good fascist" seems to be the best thing? Become war criminals, massacre innocent cvilians in thier sleep- as Sharon allowed- by proxy, of course- plausible deniablity and all - so , you expect us to go all Hitler/sharon on them-

it is very, very easy for you to talk of "sacrifice"- when you are asked to make none. If you feel so strongly about this "moral force"- where is your "moral force"- this is the reason I have absolutely 0 respect for so many conservatives that support our going into Iraq in the first place- and why so many politicians today that are vets are "liberal democrats" - because folks like you, talk all about sacrifice, of course, we have to "endure pain"- for something we should never have been inflicted with in the first place.

This war has nearly destroyed our nation. It may very well be the last thing that does destroy it-

I just wish there were some way to force every single person in America that believes as you into Iraq- since, after all, its just YOUR inability to "endure some pain" for our nation- right? That keeps us from winning?

"only" three thousand dead- how tidy it must be, to say those numbers, and look at history, and see how few dead this compares, to say, the civil war, and crow about how succesful we are.

Of course- the 30 thousand plus "casualties" are usually NOT said in the same sentance- why? they lived- and they have to "endure pain" thier whole life

and for what KT? What? Nada,zip, nothing- thier sacrifice was totally in vain for a vain and corrupt goverment.


And, oh lord- I am hoping the mods don't get to mad at me for this- because, the only way I can describe your analogy to Gen Noriega is "stupid"- like, in the extreme. Reagan was an evil and corrupt man- I know, I saw some of his nice handiwork as well in the 80s cesspool of central America- I know what kind of men and "freedom fighters" that were nothing but REAL terrorists.

Panama has always had a US presence there, and getting Noriega was an easy job- duh. Just look at the history of how Panama even became a country and you can see why it was easy for us. Even still, your "easy" and mine- may be a bit different. Getting shot at is never easy- seeing friends die for no good reason is a GOOD reason to get out of an area NOT a "moral force".

"Project power"- if the greatest fighting force that has ever lived can't "project force" over a 3 year span- nothing will "project power".

Forgive me for being blunt Kivrot, but you have added absolutely nothing whatsoever to the debate except to call any who oppose your viewpoint 'cowards'. (Though you do earn bomus points for working a 'Yesterday's Enterprise' quote in there.) Don't get me wrong, your rhetoric is finely crafted, but it is hollow rhetoric, essentially a long post saying 'Tally Ho, just hang on and we'll win old boy, Honest!'

Your entire post is based on the premise that the US is just 'not winning as quickly as some would like' and that people want to 'flee' because of just a few thousand dead. The implication here is that if those 'cowards' just held out a BIT longer, the US would be able to finish the job of 'winning' that it is apparently so close to.

There is simply no connection between reality and your view of Iraq on the ground. The US is losing. They are not winning slowly, they are LOSING. They have been unable to achieve ANY measure of progress. The country cuntinues to degrade, the Insurgency continues to get stronger, more numerous and more effective, the death toll the Insurgency inflicts continues to rise. The US withdraws its patrols and hides more and more in the green zone: the same zone the Iraqi government refuses to leave, surrendering more and more of the countryside to the Insurgency and the Islamicist militias, many of whom sit loudly and happily on their territory, rejecting the Iraqi Government and helping the insurgency without any reprisal.

Reconstruction efforts in Iraq have completely halted, there is no longer any effort to rebuild the country on any scale, as the last attempt was such a complete fiasco. The US has suffered over 25,000 combat casualties (and almost that again non-combat) and spent $600 billion dollars for NOTHING.


Well, in response to your labelling, I label Bush apologists utter cowards. Cowards who are so sycophantic they cannot bear the thought of admitting their own error, so cowardsly they would rather keep letting American boys (but not their own boys, never their own) die in a foreign land then ever admit the possibility that they might have been wrong.

Ever listened to Japanese propaganda broadcasts from around 1944? "We are winning slowly, gringing the enemy down, don't lose heart, we will win in the end, only through national cowardice and defeatism can we lose..."


I will give you this though, it WAS nice to see Tasha Yar given a proper sendof in that episode...

But it's part of the answer. You see, here's the way it works: You get to ask the questions, and the rest of us get to answer. And the answers don't necessarily have to meet with your approval.


So in other words, you're saying these people couldn't care less if al-Qa'ida establishes a permanent base in Iraq for launching terror attacks. Yes, that's my assessment of them as well.



One big problem with this analysis is that in all the other cases mentioned, there wasn't the kind of violent internecine fighting going on, that was at least as fierce as the fight against the "occupier". Or when there was such fighting, the only way it got resolved was by one side running roughshod over the other, with ugly reprisals in the aftermath. Iraq has all the makings of a Bosnia-type mess if we should leave prematurely. That's why the UN peacekeeping force idea is ill-suited to the task. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that UN peacekeeping operations are notorious for bad behavior by the peacekeepers (their home countries don't send their best troops, they send their ne'er-do-wells), the fact remains that even without the Evil Uncle Sam being there to supposedly provoke the insurgents, they still are plenty motivated to fight each other. There wouldn't be much of any "peace" for the UN forces to "keep", and so they'd be in over their heads.


Something I've had to explain over and over again, on this as well as other threads, is that statements like this absolutely do not mean squat unless accompanied by at least some attempt to speculate on what the situation would be like should we leave. If Iraq suffers massive ethnic cleansing and genocide, what would become of the Muslim "street"? More or less radicalized? If they see us back down and show weakness once again, what conclusion will they draw? And if al-Qa'ida manages to set up shop in Iraq as they did in Afghanistan, and use it as a launching pad and recruitment center for acts of terror against the West, will that make us more or less safe than we currently are? These questions need to be addressed before making a statement like that. You can't just look at the current situation in a vacuum, all isolated from all other scenarios for comparison.

The fact is, the best way anyone's suggested for reducing the danger of attacks is to proceed with the extra troop deployment in an intelligent fashion, as I've been arguing for the last several posts. Summing up the evidence that Vermillion and I have posted, a rather clear pattern emerges, as follows.

Factors in Iraq that have worked to the advantage of al-Qa'ida are twofold:

1. As the sectarian strife increases, particularly the massive tit-for-tat retaliations against noncombatant civilian targets by each sectarian group against the other, groups like al-Qa'ida find it easier to operate in the shadows, and can also present themselves to the Sunnites as their defenders against Shi'a death squads.

2. As uncertainty increases as to whether or not we're going to stay committed in Iraq, Sunnites in Anbar province are going to be wary of cooperating with us and depending on us for defense against the Shi'a attackers. If they cooperate with us, and then we pull out, they fear they could face retaliation by al-Qa'ida and affiliated groups.

Factors in Iraq that have worked to the disadvantage of al-Qa'ida are likewise twofold:

1. A number of Sunni tribal leaders who aren't too thrilled with al-Qa'ida's brand of anal-retentive Islam have actually switched sides and joined us in fighting them (Vermillion has asserted that these groups are still part of the insurgency even as they fight against al-Qa'ida, but he hasn't provided a scintilla of evidence to support this notion; indeed, the evidence he has presented indicates the exact opposite, that these tribes have utterly switched sides and are working very closely with both the coalition and the Iraqi government). But this success is limited for reasons that I just mentioned in note #2 immediately above.

2. U.S. troops working to provide security to Iraqis and actually working with them and helping them rebuild has been a great antidote to the influence of vermin like al-Qa'ida, but unfortunately this effort is hampered by a shortage of manpower. The increase in manpower that's been proposed is of a quantity that local commanders have said would help a lot.

For further details on these points and more, see my unrebutted post I made a few posts above, here. And I daresay that any declamation against the war that does not address these facts is just empty hyperventilation. The easiest thing to do to is just sit there and throw rocks, especially with someone as lampoonable as Bush in the White House, and even more especially when the political climate is on your side. But a sober look at the facts simply does not justify this relentless negativity.

Vermillion:

Glad to hear that you believe Tasha Yar received a suitable sendoff, but in line with everything that I've said here about honor, please note that her mission and orders were suicide, but yet, as she said, I know the mission and these are my orders. Honor isn't otherwise taught in physics class or the chem lab and so here on AD can be nothing more than rhetoric expressing a code of ethics deeply held and adhered to. So your criticism of mere rhetoric is very nearly meaningless [or as you put it, hollow].

Otherwise ironic that you brought up the Japanese, since we don't know what would have happened had not Hirohito accomplished the unprecedented by way of his direct request that his people endure the unendurable. You think the resistance in Iraq is bad, well, I shudder to think what an insurgency in Japan would have been like. In any event, how do some words in 1944 explain the subsequent capitulation in mid-1945? With the irony here being that it was the same persons who spoke of national cowardice who later did the surrendering and asked some others to endure the unendurable. So what comparison is there to be made with Iraq? Since you asked for solutions, well, why not try asking those of influence in Iraq to ask their people to endure the unendurable? You can even tell them to remind their own of the subsequent success of the Japanese, and that success in spite of the fact that they are still enduring the unendurable [our armed presence in their land]. The only comparison to be made here works in our favor, since our conduct in Japan post their surrender dispels all notions of any "Crusader" mentality. So maybe a little education via the newspaper, radio, and television wouldn't hurt either.

Now on to sycophant cowards [http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0106mccain-war0106.html]:

"McCain acknowledged the strategy of sending in more troops long-term will mean 'more casualties and extra hardships for our brave fighting men and women, and the violence may get worse before it gets better.'

But he said that the deployment needs to be 'substantial, and it must be sustained,' and that it should not be attached to any fixed time limit for withdrawal, which he said would 'signal to insurgents and militias they can merely wait us out. . . .'"

Isn't that what I've been saying? That our speaking of impending bug out gives them no reason to do anything but continue to endure? So, fine, call me a sycophant coward [or as CR did, a chickenhawk], but let us all see what you [and he] call Senator McCain in this regard. Maybe it's otherwise that the Senator and I both know what we would do were we in their place and you were speaking of some fixed time limit for withdrawal.

I disagree with the Senator re the troops, as the answer to the security problem is more of them and less of us. And by that I mean to say that we need to start relying on them for our own security. You want to solve the problem with security, then let us rely on them for our protection. Then we'll make sure that we select suitable people and train them well, as our very lives will depend on it. Otherwise, we risk merely running all through the system so that we might report some suitable numbers to higher command. But speaking of honor, what would that say? I am trusting you with my life, so do what duty [honor] requires.

And for where you are patently wrong:

"Your entire post is based on the premise that the US is just 'not winning as quickly as some would like' and that people want to 'flee' because of just a few thousand dead. The implication here is that if those 'cowards' just held out a BIT longer, the US would be able to finish the job of 'winning' that it is apparently so close to."

When have I said that? But I have said, "stalemates can be rather bloody affairs," "I'm not saying that the current circumstance isn't bad, as it is," and, lastly, that it all "sucks." So where have I said that we are almost home, just a wee BIT more or longer? I simply said that we need more willpower than 3,000 dead over 4 years. I know that many don't like the comparison, but we have lost, and will lose, to a statistical certainty, 40,000 or so each year in vehicular accidents. So over the 4 years, it is humans driving motor vehicles killing 160,000 Americans versus 3,000 dead in Iraq. Might I suggest that if we truly care about 3,000 that we might have "no drive" days scattered throughout the year? Maybe we could save 3,000 over 4 years and call it even.

Now, please tell me, why do we want to leave? To save us or them, or both? That's why I'll say for the 3rd time now, we know that (1) most in Iraq simply want to live and (2) they won't stop being murdered if we leave. So who is it for? Us or for them? And if for us, isn't such our "flight" from the "Iraqi hell"? The aeroplanes used to effect such will only serve to confirm the point, literally so.

But if we need more troops, forget about Baghdad, as we ought to affect a hermetic seal of the country. Then, sooner or later, some will run out of ammunition [as the late Bernard Fall put it, the enemy with the active sanctuary has always prevailed, so I'd simply like us to not allow that active sanctuary, and so, since the enemy does need to be resupplied, we effect the seal, maintain a rather rigid control over anything that might be used to hurt us, and then sooner or later they'll have expended that which can be used to hurt us and war over].

And re whether we are in fact losing, from the UK's Timesonline:

"Up to 20,000 extra troops will be deployed to pacify Baghdad, the capital, and Anbar province, home to the Sunni insurgency. As the Pentagon recently noted in a report to Congress, the two regions saw 54% of all attacks in Iraq last year."

So are we losing?

And now the word from the conservative voice, via a certain British General:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21748.html

So, as he and I both appreciate, it is all about the will to win. I'll let you decide for yourself whether his "utterly confident" is a reflection of his own personal belief.

And we are still rebuilding, but less of the concrete and more of the mind:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/16399771.htm

That's been a big part of the problem that most of us here tend to overlook, I mean, they don't have any real experience with what it means to govern or to even have a say in how you are governed. We here at home probably cannot appreciate that reality, since our experience has always been that we've had a say. And it may take decades, small win by small win, but we need only ask ourselves whether the people of Iraq are worth the sacrifice. You and some others are essentially saying that they are not.

And for more to consider:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...13/147ltxge.asp

Wasn't it nightimer who once asked all here to remember that those dying in Iraq are real humans? They are. So what happens to them when we leave and why is that never part of the discussion? You have claimed mine to be irrelevant, etc., but you too have never seen fit to address a single remark of mine re what happens to these people when we leave. Why is that? Is that because you do have a conscience, and you know that if you listen to it, that it's gonna say, what about the people we're leaving behind, what happens to them? And why otherwise hand our enemy the greatest psychological triumph ever?

And note the last question of the piece, to wit, the question that remains open is whether the United States can take the pounding from the Sunni insurgents and holy warriors and stay true to its original mission. Or as I put, borrowing from the Irish patriot, do we have the will to endure, since that is what it takes to conquer.

Here's a soul who believes in bug out, but at least he is prepared to acknowledge the catastrophe that will follow and has no hesitation in saying that our departure will not be virtuous:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-99054

So if you advocate the bug out, fine, do so, but at least admit that it won't be honorable or virtuous and that catastrophe will likely follow. I simply think that catastrophe can be averted if we have the will to endure. And if you want a more local reason to believe, well, look at the vote. How many voted and what percent of the population was that? How many who want to see all this killing went out to vote? If those choosing the vote over the gun are still who they are, we are still the majority and are not losing.

Oh, and we have some friends to help us:

http://www.examiner.com/a-491510~El_Salvad...ps_to_Iraq.html

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/01/06/10094801.html

3.) Can we leave honorably? If so-how will this be accomplished?

Has anybody read drewyorktimes' post?


Well, what about it? So what's the matter--it's not "sexy" enough, or it means that those dollar signs in the eyes of American capitalists (and others) would have to disappear for it to work? This is what I'm talking about:


Well, I can see one fatal flaw in this plan right away--IT'S NOT GEORGE'S IDEA.

Barring any