I've read the Fatwahs. I know that the US using Saudi Arabia as the staging area for the Iraq War 1.0 was a rallying cry for Al Qaeda. But, if anything, this point argues that there's a connection between Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda not Iraq and Al Qaeda -- something which we already know (since most of the 9/11'ers were of Saudi origination). As I see it, this is your argument:

1. Iraq invades Quwait
2. The US uses the Saudi Arabia to repel Iraq from Quwait
3. Bin Laden/Al Qaeda issues a Fatwah because the US was in Saudi Arabia
4. Thus, Iraq is to blame for Bin Laden's Fatwah
5. Finally, Iraq and Al Qaeda are "connected" because of this.

I'm sorry this just doesn't work for me. If you were arguing that the US staging in Saudi Arabia demonstrates a connection between Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, then I'd agree. But, you're trying to make the most tenuous of connections here.


Um...nice way to avoid the issue. I'll have to remember that one -- but, it is exhausting when someone intentionally misreads the argument.

1. Al Qaeda was *emboldened* by the US having troops in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is part of the Islamic holy land and the US are infidels.
2. Al Qaeda was/is *emboldened* by the US having troops in Iraq. Why? Because Iraq is part of the Islamic holy land and the US are infidels.

That's about as succinct and unambiguous as I can put it. Misread away...


Uh...okay. Apart from trying to create some sort of ad hominem connection between myself and Al Qaeda, perhaps you could address the point I was making?


Please demonstrate how this will come to pass. I think I've done a reasonable job sourcing my arguments.

If you read the fatwahs you will notice that bin Laden makes reference to the "Arabian Peninsula"



and later on, same fatwah......



bin Laden doesn't seem to care a whole lot about national boundaries like Saudi Arabia. He's more of a regional kinda guy and part of his regional concerns include Iraq.



Source for this please? Perhaps you can find writings of bin Laden as I have to prove my points that will prove yours? Now, if all you have here is leaked documents as reported in news sources, fair warning. I have some of those of my own that contradict your assertations rather strongly.



Source for this claim? Perhaps something from bin Laden himself, maybe a claim or two this is true? Of course then he'd have to explain why his organization was asking for money. From the Washington Post.......



Yep, sure sounds like they're doing a land office business all right.



It seems to me that the majority of attacks going on in Iraq are targeting Iraqis, "soft targets" like bombs in markets and the like. Your thinking that's because Americans are there? Once we run away, they'll just magically stop and everyone will kill Al Qaeda terrorists and then go on to live happily ever after?




Read the fatwah for goodness sakes! Sheesh! Bin Laden cites American withdrawls from Beirut and Somalia as rallying points for Al Qaeda.





Source your claim with hard evidence, not somebody's "estimate" or best guess. MY proof is in the fatwah. MY proof is in the actual words of Osama bin Laden, not some selective leaker in the State Department with their own agenda.



I can think of others. But, if the CIA and NIE are correct, can you source the actual reports please, not the analysis of some journalist, then perhaps they can tell us why Al Qaeda was asking for money?

That's enough for now, I'll deal with your other questions later while you deal with mine..... Yeah, like that's going to happen.....





Aquilla

Okay- Aquilla- all you have been able to say here is "Damned if we do, Damned if you don't"

1) They declare victory and are emboldened if we STAY.

2) They declare victory and are embolded if we LEAVE



I was just reading the washington post I believe- Iraq is a recruiting poster for the whoe world-

we have a new word "Al-Quaida Franchises"

So, how is staying or leaving NOTgoing to "emboldened" Al Quaida?

::::sigh:::: This whole thing is getting pretty circular. "Show me proof!" "That's not proof!" and blah, blah, blah....... Even the words of bin Laden himself heralding the withdrawl of American forces from Beirut and Somalia have no traction with those on the left who wish to declare defeat and cut and run. When I point to battles in Iraq fought by Iraqis not against Americans, but rather against the people that are blowing up women and children in marketplaces, the response from the left is "so what?" Then they ask for "proof" of something that hasn't happened, not yet at least. I can only go by history, and by what Al Qaeda has said in the past when Americans cut and run. As an historian, certainly Vermillion should appreciate the lessons of history, but as I have stated here in this forum in the past, sometimes it seems that some "historians" are more interested in re-writing history than they are in learning from it. I don't know if Vermillion falls into this class or not, I would be disappointed if he did. In any case, let's try this again, and this time travel back in time a ways to "my war" and see what our enemy said then. HIS words, not someone's analysis or perception. I am of course talking about General Vo Nguyen Giap, effectively the leader of the North Vietnamese forces during the Vietnam War. He defeated first the French at Dien Bien Phu and then took on the American military. He ended up forcing us to withdraw from Vietnam as well (or re-deploy as Jack Murtha would put it) and we all know what eventually happened. Actually, I'm not sure some here really know what happened after we left, but that's a subject for another thread. Giap drew the blueprint for how to defeat a superior military force and that gets us back (finally) to the topic for debate in this thread. How did he do it? Part of the answer can be found here... Giap's own words...




"to the living rooms of Americans back home"..... That's politics. Giap understood America better than we understood Vietnam. Maybe we should pay attention to Giap, I gaurantee you Al Qaeda has. How would he fight on our side in Iraq? Perhaps me might have some ideas. Perhaps he might say something like the following.......




Ok, for those here who continue to ask me how I would win in Iraq, there you go. That's a starting point at least. I'm willing to defer to the superior military knowledge of General Giap and steal his ideas.


Aquilla

Very good points Aquilla. Certainly AQ understands that the road to victory against a far superior force is to demoralize and discourage.

Clearly they understand that to display to the living rooms of Americans back home the death of some soldiers (and civilians) daily is very important.

This imo is also the reason for the public, filmed beheadings and mutilation of American and Iraqi captives. They know that once the American people are fed up with the losses the wars over and they win.

Hopefully we, and the Iraqi government can reach a political accommodation with the factions such that the majority of them agree on a unified government and recognize that the AQ folks are not really “allies”. If this happens we “win” and the unified government will quickly crush AQ and any factions not on bopard.

To this end US commanders are even reaching out to insurgent groups.

“The US commander of ground forces in Iraq says the military is increasing its efforts to reach out to insurgent groups to get them to stop their attacks.

Speaking to reporters (via satellite from Iraq) Thursday, Lieutenant General Ray Odierno said commanders at all levels should work to improve communication with militants. The general added that some insurgents are reaching out to US forces.”

http://www.voanews.com/bangla/2007-05-31-voa18.cfm

Indeed it is. You keep being asked to evidence your assertions, and you keep refusing to do so. Very circular.



You really need to stop waving this 1998 statements around as though it proved all your contentions, when it does not in fact provide the slightest evidence for any of them. At all.

Let's put this to bed, shall we? There is no question that Bin Laden was happy when the US withdrew from Somalia, as it was happy in the defeat of one of it's greatest enemies. THAT much, your 1998 document proves.

It is also unquestionable that Bin Laden would probably be happy of the US withdrew from Iraq, as a sign of the defeat of the United States. Not because AQ wins, because it does not do so, AQ in Iraq is a minor force hated by all of the local powers, but none the less it would still be the final stage of a loss for the United States.


But what YOU have done, is try and take those facts and totally turn them on their head. You have tried to use a 1998 speech (Not a fatwah technically, as Bin laden is not an Iman) as PROOF that the United States will be in MORE danger if the US withdraws, which is a complete logical leap utterly unsupported by this statement, (which by the way, is the only shred of evidence you have provided for any of your assertions).

AQ has proven itself full of members willing and happy to commit bloody suicide if it means killing Americans, one attack in 2001 succeeded, other attacks launched since have been thwarted. So explain to me please how exactly these suicidal fanatics need 'encouragement'? Your original statement (now quietly abandoned by you) of 'fight them over there OR fight them over here' has been proven factually wrong, as the US is already 'fighting them over here'.

The status quo is that over a hundred Americans are dying and hundreds are being wounded BECAUSE the US is in Iraq, which will stop immediately (The Americans dying, not the conflict) if the US leaves Iraq. If you wish to contend there is greater risk to the United States after a withdrawal, you need to provide something, ANYTHING, some shred of evidence to support that wild assertion.

Keeping in mind of course, that others here have already presented evidence that this will NOT be the case, that in fact withdrawal from Iraq will free up money and US military assets to use in the REAL war on terror, that in fact according to multiple unimpeachable studies the war in Iraq has directly led to the growth of AQ international and increased the threat to the United States, as well as destabilizing the Middle East. Those are the facts.



Total dodge. Why did you quote my question and then deliberately refuse to address it? I can but repost it for you, hoping maybe you will deign to respond this time:

"So in fact, the point you are making is that AQ has links to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia has links to Iraq. OK, you have managed to evidence that there is a very tangential link between Iraq and one of the motivations of AQ: that is SO FAR away from the claim that there are any actual systemic links or practical links between any part of the former Iraqi Regime and any part of AQ."

Let me then ADD: again we need to be very clear about what your document says, and what you just want it to say. Yes, the presence of US troops in the Arabian peninsula is one of the many motivations for AQ, nobody denies that. But thats ALL it says. You trying to parlay that into 'there are links between Iraq and AQ' is sheer fantasy on your part. In fact the BEST you can determine from the 1998 fatwah is Bin laden's hatred of the US stems from its 'bending to the will of the jews' in Israel.

So Firstly, this in no WAY demonstrates any kind of systemic or tangible links between the Regime in Iraq and Al qaeda.
Secondly, In fact it directly opposes your OWN main point: if the US presence in Iraq is (as YOU contend) one of the main motivators for AQ, then perhaps the US should pull out of Iraq?
Thirdly, even if somehow mentioning Iraq as one of the motivators for AQ DID mean there were links between the two states: The fatwah ALSO mentions Pakistan, Palestine, Tajakestan, Burma, Cashmere, Assam, Philippine, Fatani, Ogadin, Somalia, Erithria, Chechnia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sudan, Afghanistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. By YOUR logic, that means AQ has 'links' with all those states as well, right?



Firstly: Since you so nicely asked for evidence that Hussein and AQ hated each other, please allow me to provide:

http://www.president-bush.com/osamabinhussein.html
"Saddam Hussein, a man Bin Laden has called "an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam"

Then there is the 9/11 report itself, which not only completely disproves the possibility of any links between Hussein and AQ, but states that Bin Laden openly provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2005/12/1220133
"No better validation of this can be had than by recognizing that Saddam Hussein — until scooped from his mole hole — was bin Laden's only rival as a hero and leader in the Muslim world."

But you want Bin Laden's words? Here is his 2003 speech in which he calls Hussein an Infidel and a socialist.
http://everything2.com/?node_id=1429201


This is an issue we need to be very clear on, Aquilla. I cited you four high-level unimpeachable reports that firmly and conclusively disproved the notion that there were any tangible or systemic links between Iraq and AQ. But you have dismissed these reports out of hand, preferring to trust.... well... nothing, as you have offered no evidence to counter them.

But let's look at reality for a moment, shall we? When these four independent reports were released, their result was so conclusive, so unimpeachable, that it ENDED THIS DEBATE. That's right, it ended it. After those reports, NOBODY still claimed there were links between Iraq and Bin laden. The administration dropped all such claims, Bush jr never referenced it again, even such ideologues as Coulter and O'Reilley and FOX news stopped commenting on these links. Everyone, even those on the far right, was convinced by the unimpeachable depth of analysis and inescapable conclusions of these reports. Even our own local far-rightists such as Lordhelmet and Ted dropped the case.

The issue of links between AQ and Iraq is long over, and has been over for almost 2 years Aquilla: now here you are, trying to bring it back, trying to repeat 2003 era assertions as if none of that had ever happened... and what do YOU offer us as evidence? a 1998 speech that in NO WAY evidences your point whatsoever.

Oh but wait... I forgot. NOW you tell us you have other, unmentioned, ‘reports’ that contradict there. Well then, if you have evidence or studies that has surfaced since these reports came out that disputes them, don't keep them to yourself, post them! Please! You have been asked, nay begged to evidence some of your arguments for pages now, so here you say you have unspecific 'reports' which contradict the CIA and Pentagon report, the 9/11 report, the NIE report, the MI5 report, all of which unanimously state the same thing. Well then, don't keep us all in suspense: You claim to have such evidence, then produce it!



Pay attention Aquilla, I'm tired of explaining this. Al Qaeda in Iraq was asking for money from Al Qaeda international. Yes, AQ in Iraq was in a bad way largely because of lack of support and opposition from locals. They had been unable to garner a substantial base of support in Iraq, and were asking for money.

THAT, as compared to BEFORE the US invasion, when there was No Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. Thus again, the indisputable fact that the war helped AQ, both by deprioritising the war on terror, and by opening up Iraq.

(Aside: I like how you are arguing in one point that AQ is a threat in Iraq, and then on another point provide evidence on how AQ in Iraq is in trouble and is asking for money and support. Such self-contradictions don’t help your case much)




Why do you feel the need to do this Aquilla? Completely and obviously misrepresent a point, make up what you WISH I had said as opposed to actually debating what I did say? Why do you think this gains you anything or helps you in the debate? Do you really think people won't see what you have done?

Of COURSE I never said that, nor ever said anything like that. I said that the local militias (Such as the Mahdi Army, Badr Brigade, Peshmurga) loathe AQ as much as they hate the United States, and actively fight them both: with the US gone these militias will not be dividing their attacks between two hostile foreign attackers, and can concentrate on AQ.

Of COURSE sectarian violence will continue, I never suggested or implied it would stop. Yes, a large part of the sectarian violence is concentrated against supporters of the militias of the other side: civilians, markets, etc. That is unlikely to change. Nor did I ever imply it would.

Now that this invented dodge is out of the way, perhaps you could bring yourself to answer what I actually DID say? That the militias oppose AQ as strongly as they do the US?




I'm sorry, did you just try and dismiss the 9/11 Commission report as somebody's "estimate" or best guess? Did you just dismiss the CIA/pentagon report on Hussien/Bin laden as somebody's "estimate" or best guess? Did you just dismiss the MI5 report, the IISS report and the NIE report as somebody's "estimate" or best guess? Are you serious? Are you even TRYING to debate here?

Your 1998 speech evidences NONE of your points, and you glibly dismiss massive, unimpeachable exhaustive reports on the subject by multipe independent sources, reports to unquestionable that tey have ENDED THE DEBATE as somebody's "estimate" or best guess?



Well, you get points for moxie, I'll give you that. You having the audacity to assert I am not or have not answered your questions is the absolute definition of Irony. I have answered every question you have thrown at me, every one. On the other hand, how long have multiple people on this board been asking, begging you to evidence your assertions that 'Withdrawal from Iraq increases the danger to the US', and that 'there were tangible links between AQ and Iraq'? How long? You have not even tried to answer anyone elses questions, preferring to dodge them, make up or deliberately misrepresent their points, or when all your other evasion tactics fail" insult them and call them 'allies of Al qaeda'. For shame sir.




So your suggestion on how the US can turn this loss into a victory is to ‘know the Iraqis better’? Well, while probably a good suggestion overall… this isn’t a plan. Nor even close to a plan, I’m sure you will agree.

Fact 1: According to every measurable standard, the US is losing ground in Iraq, unceasingly, and has been for several years.

Fact 2: Everyone, even Bush Jr has acknowledged that the only way a victory might be possible is if the Iraqi government starts governing.

Fact 3: The Iraqi government has proven itself completely incapable of governing, they have missed 100% of their self imposed benchmarks, they have failed to pass any legislation of significance and their response to the ‘troop surge’ (meant to give them more time to start governing) is to have the government go on vacation for 1-2 months.

Fact 4: casualties among Americans are up to 120 dead a month and about 600 wounded a month, with expenses of 9$ billion dollars a month.


Those are facts. You say that in YOUR opinion, the losses in men and treasure should continue indefinitely, yet even you cannot provide a tangible suggestion as to how the situation can be remedied. So you will forgive us if it SEEMS like you want the war to continue because you like Americans dying: I'm fairly sure that is not the case, but you certainly have not been able to provide any other tangible reasons.

Vermillion


So what is your master plan, come to think of it, we have all heard plenty about what people like yourself think we shouldn't be doing so lets turn the tide here. What do you think we should do about Al Qaeda, who today has a strong presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan and this is obviously not arguable. When I watched the last democratic debate, sure we hear the words IRAQ / WITHDRAWAL / TIME TABLE / BUSH / MISTAKES but what are the words we heard less about??? OSAMA BIN LADEN / AYMAN AL ZAWAHIRI / AL QAEDA /. I remember Hillery Clinton to her own credit mentioning Bill Clinton's attempts at killing Bin laden in the 90's, but very little serious discussion on what we should be doing now, so what is it you think we should do, and lets get specific. Everyone here knows what I think we should do, but I haven't heard much from you apart from the continuous insights on why we shouldn't have done this, or why we shouldn't have done that. Lets be constructive because what I'm interested in is what we should do now !!

Has there been a retaliation from Al Qaeda since our arrival in Iraq? Yes, but this is because we did not have the troops on the ground to do two things at once, it was a lack of preparation, but done properly we wouldn't be having this discussion. The mistake was not going into Iraq, because Iraq was a concern for many reasons and I'll debate that to the fullest, the mistake was our timing and the lack of troops, so in other words a lack of preparation in general. I've been looking around and it turns out we are doing something now that should have been done 5 years ago and thats increasing the overall Size of our ground forces by nearly 100,000 over the next five years. But this wont all come at once, it will be a gradual build up, and many of these forces will be ready in early 2009, less than 2 years away. So relief is on the way, so it appears the impossible is already being done. In the meantime I say why not pull a small percentage of American troops from nations we are not at war with. we have 1.5 million active troops and 800 thousand reserve troops. The number of troops in Iraq last I read was 200,000+ I don't know how much that has changed in the last few months but by looking at these figures I'm estimating that less than 10% of our overall troops are in Iraq. Point here being is that this country is not stretched to the limit. On another note since we are not at war with countries like Europe, Germany, Japan, or Italy and Acording to Wiki the United States occupies over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide, I'm not a general or politician but my gut tells me that to pull just 2% of these troops into Iraq would do little to hinder operations across the globe but help us out a great deal in this war until relief comes. Just an Idea.

War is a time of sacrifice and tough decisions, frankly we shouldn't be in the situation we are in right now, but now that we are we have a responsibility to stand by our original commitments and stay true to our promises. So thats my stance, whats yours? Like Ive said I've already heard plenty about whats not your stance, but what is it you want to do here? Should we pretend Al Qaeda is not in Iraq? Should we reposition the bulk of our troops in Afganistan leaving Iraq wide open to an all out assault from Al Qaeda? Should we just leave altogether? With all due respect I haven't exactly heard the left come up with any brilliant ideas here, just a whole lot a' finger pointin' and blaming.

Ohh goodie a link... If not for this link my point would be entirely moot, Nah, now that wouldn't be mature to think would it?
In all honestly links are a good way to back a debate, when I feel like posting them so here you go... From the same site as one of your links I think.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ldup_in_troops/

Good question. Tell you what, I'll deal with that last.




Well, going into Iraq the way it was done was a mistake, going into Iraq deliberately sabotaging any possible multilateral action on the part of the UN was an obvious mistake. Frankly going into Iraq at all was very likely a mistake, but as you say, thats an aside and a discussion for another topic.



You might be jumping the gun a little bit. This is a suggestion by Gates, thats all. It needs to be drafted, pass through the president, and then the House and the Senate before it can be acted upon. Now if it does go forward, it is likely to pass both houses, then it will start the actual process.

However, in the article you cited, the main problem with the plan, as I'm sure you read, is where these recruits come from.

(From your source)"
But the expansion will not be cheap, quick, or easy. Recruiting, training, and equipping new soldiers and Marines will cost tens of billions of dollars, and it will take years before they will have an effect on current military operations, senior Pentagon officials said yesterday.

And perhaps the biggest challenge will be finding enough volunteers. To meet its current recruiting goals, the Army has relaxed some standards, accepting more recruits who don't have a high school diploma or general equivalency degree, and allowing older men and women to join. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has also substantially increased enlistment bonuses and launched a multi million-dollar advertising campaign to draw more young people to the recruitment office.

"I think it will be a hell of a challenge" to find 92,000 recruits, said Alan Gropman , a retired Air Force colonel who teaches at the National Defense University in Washington. "That's a very large number. It will be impossible if you don't raise pay and other benefits.


Certainly if and when it passes, this plan will help provide a long-term boost to the military, assuming they can find the recruits. However it is a long-term plan, and even in an ideal situation, with the first troops coming out only two years after the plan finally goes into operation. That is no help to the forces in Iraq, which cannot sustain their levels of operation past the end of the year, nor for the surge, which is due to face an official progress report in September.




I'm sorry net2007, we have dealt with this before, and you are quite completely wrong.

The US does NOT have 1.5 million troops and 800k reserve troops. What it does have is 1.5 million regular and 800k reserve on the military payroll. These are not troops. These are cooks, mechanics, lawyers, journalists, janitors, teachers, IT staff, command staff, nurses, carpenters, typists and secretaries, and so on. The US military has the largest ratio of support staff to combat troops in the world, at over 10:1. Now it is true that most (not all) of the support staff in the army and marines went through their 6-week basic training course (possibly decades ago) but most will not even have gone through Advanced Infantry Training or any further combat training at all because of their MOS. These are not combat soldiers, not even close. If you try and put a nurse or janitor into combat in the place of a regular infantryman, they will get themselves and their squadmates killed.

Of course, of those big number you describe, you also fauled to note that 24% of them are in the Navy, 23% are in the Air Force and 3% are in the Coast Guard. Since I assume you are not daft enough to suggest we throw typists and mechanics who only went through NAVY basic training into downtown baghdad, that reduced the total of personnel in army and marines by over half.

The marine corps, at the very least, required AIT for all recruits regardless of their MOS, the Army and Reserves does not. So your 'soldier' may have taken 6 weeks of basic PT and spent some time on a rifle range a decade or two ago, and then spent his advanced training and all subsequent training learning how to be a nurse, or typist. And THAT is the majority, there is a minority of support staff, clrical and others, who will NOT EVEN have done basic training.

You have asserted to the contrary repeatedly, and you are quite wrong: you really need to learn how a modern military works. The US is quite literally tapped out of active combat troops. Do the maths yourself, if the ratio of support staff to combat troops is over 10-1, (and over half of your number is invalid being in navy, AF or CG) then reserve and regular army together would give you about 120,000 combat troops. Almost ALL of those (exceptions being the South Korea brigade) are already on rotation in Iraq or Afghanistan. Add to that the 50,000 odd combat and non-combat casualties the US has taken since the war began, and you can understand why the US military is currently stretched to the absolute limit of its ground fighting power. That is why the US has been FORCED to bring in the National Guard to fill in the ranks.



Then you haven't been listening. The 'left' has come up with quite a few plans, although the most popular is the one proposed by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group SET UP BY BUSH Jr to come up with answers for Iraq, then completely ignored by him when they did in fact report.



So, back to the original question: what is my plan? Simple, I endorse the ISG plan entirely. The US should pull all troops out of Iraq on a 1-year timetable, with the exception of a few training and SF units to assist the Iraqi regime. Almost all of those troops will require rest, resupply, remanning and reequipping, but once that has been done, deploy a managable and sustainable number of them (say about 60,000) to Afghanistan where the war, once lost, is now tumbling towards loss because of the deprioritisation of the Bush Jr government.

AQ will very likely be wiped out in Iraq by the militias, or will at the very least grow no further: it is in a hostile country where nobody likes it.
The portion of the violence in Iraq which is directed at the American occuyers will stop, obviously.
The portion of violence direected at sects and tribes within Iraq will not stop, not unless the Iraqi government manages to start governing. However those two facts combined will lead to an overall reduction in violence in Iraq immediately, at least for the short term.

In the medium to long term, who knows. The sectarian violence may die down, it may remain static, it may increase. Iran certainly won't invade, but it will continue supplying sympathetic militias, as Saudi and Syria will continue supplying militias sympathetic to them. Hopefully the Iraqi government, realising it has a year to get its act together, and wont be able to just lean on the US and do nothing, will start governing: that is, in the end , the only hope of the country.


So best case scenario: Afghanistan can now be won: the taliban and AQ which are there can be defeated, Iraq violence goes down and the government is forced to start governing. Oh, and American stop dying and being injured at a phenominal rate and spending 9 billion dollars a month for nothing.

Worst case scenario: Afghanistan can now be won, but the Iraqi government does not learn to govern (in which case it is an invalid government) and the sectarian violence continues. But then again, that is the STATUS QUO. Oh, except American stop dying and being injured at a phenominal rate and spending 9 billion dollars a month for nothing.

Well, my master plan is to get out of Iraq forthwith; substantially reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East; subtantially reduce U.S. support for repressive regimes like those of Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf; and substantially reduce U.S. support for Israel. Most particularly the U.S. should call for the wall around Israel to be dismantled; the Jewish settlements outside Israel to be abandoned; Israel to get out of Jerusalem; and the immediate return to Israel of the exiled Palestinians, together with a restoration of their property rights.

Fundamentally, militant Islam is not at war with us but with Israel and with repressive regimes in the Arab world. We are their enemies not because they hate us or our freedoms, but only incidentally, because we are the prop that supports aggressive Zionism and Middle Eastern regimes like those of Saud and Mubarak. That could change, and so could their enmity. No, we will never be able to make friends with the most militant of these people or even convince them to stop attacking us. But we will make many Arab friends nonetheless, and this will sap the strength of the worst militants.

An important reason for the rise of militant Islamism has been the lack of any alternatives for progress toward democracy and the restoration of Palestine in the Middle East. That too could change.



We should do nothing, beyond reasonable measures to defend the country from terrorism. Al Qaeda has no armor divisions, you see, and no aircraft carriers. Al Qaeda is a powerful world-spanning force in your mind and in that of George Bush. Most other people understand that it is a bugbear that the likes of Cheney are using to justify this imperialist oil-gathering adventure and, not coincidentally, a very great erosion of civil liberties at home. Is terrorism a threat, and could a very harmful attack happen at some point in the future? Certainly. What is best to do about this? Essentially nothing beyond active intelligence-gathering and passive home defense. Everything else is much more destructive to ourselves than it is to our enemies. Personally, I think it was a serious mistake to institute the Department of Homeland Security (what is the Defense Department, for crying out loud?).

The fall of the twin towers was pretty horrible, especially beheld on television, but on the scale of our national interest and power, it was a pinprick. What has not been a pinprick is the vast cost of this war in blood, treasure and the loss of the world's goodwill. That has been more like sawing off one of our own feet. And the same could be said of most of the anti-terrorism restrictions that we have implemented at home.



Oh, I know, that is precisely Hilary Clinton's point of view. If only we had been smart about our imperialist escapade, it would have been a galloping success. Somehow it eludes people that our military -- which is preeminent in this world -- has actually been doing its best to win this war. But no, it's so easy to sit in one's armchair and imagine that if oneself had been moving the little flags around on the map, everything would have turned out all right.

The reason this war is lost is not that the little flags weren't properly moved, or the right tactics tried at the unit level, but simply that there are no available means to pacify Iraq, either now or in future.




As others have pointed out here, the U.S. military is stretched to the limit by its commitment in Iraq, particularly with the surge. You seem, if I may say so, to be quite ignorant about the nature of modern military forces. Yes, we have this big military, but only so many troops are combat personnel. We have 9-10 people in uniform, maybe more, for every troop whose job is to fight. Even at that, we have a great many people in armed branches that are basically irrelevant to the struggle in Iraq. All those people in the Navy, for example.



War, at least when you're not being invaded, is also a time to consider whether all the sacrifice is worth the prospective gain. How old are you? If your so damned certain that the war in Iraq is a great cause, you ought to sign up yourself and go fight it.

Secondly, what is the prospect of success along this path of war that you propose? The surge, which is a minor variation on what has already failed to work in four years, is not working. So how long shall we continue to fight, merely to postpone the day when we admit we've been beaten? Would it be worth continuing this war for, oh, 20 years if that were necessary? 40 years? 400 years? Because if there is zero progress in four years and you try to extrapolate a time of victory, I-Day recedes rather far into the future, doesn't it? But in fact, there hasn't been zero progress in four years; there has been negative progress.

My goodness, we're writing books here. We used to have a saying in the space business - "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with (cow excrement)". Well, needless to say, I haven't exactly been dazzled here but my garden has certainly been well-fertilized. Rather than to write another book here, perhaps it might be useful to go back and clean up a few things in Vermillion's last epic novel before it's next printing.....



Oh please..... (Just had to throw that in).

Now on to the real stuff...... (where to start here.....)

Ok, here's a good one.....



Errrr..... You might want to re-read that letter again, Vermillion. Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't asking for money from Al Qaeda International (as you call them, kinda like "corporate, eh?), but it was the other way around. Corporate was asking for money from Iraq.

Now, let's look at your "sources" and their claims, your claims and reality....

First source..... Ok, first thing I noticed about this "objective source" is at the bottom of their page they have a picture of President Bush with a caption that reads "A war criminal in the White House?" Ok, what do they say?

Your quote......



And they do indeed say that, but let's do a fact check shall we? Let's look at the actual context of that claim. And tell you what, I'll use one of your very own sources! From your fourth source (bin Laden's own words - congratulations)......



There is a saying attributed to the Middle East that goes along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Kinda seems that's what bin Laden is saying here, completely different context than what you and your first reference implied.

Moving on.....

Second source. Your claim....




And you're right! But, it also says a lot more doesn't it? Let's see.....



Previously? What happened I wonder? Let's see. From the article....



Well, darn, that pretty well blows the contention that there was no "link" between Al Qaeda and Iraq now doesn't it. Notice I didn't put a qualifier like "formal" or "systemic" in front. Never have. You have, but I haven't. I've just claimed there was a nexus.

Now, on to your third reference.....

Kudos to you on this one. It is a fascinating article and one perhaps worthy of a separate thread. One of the things in this article that caught my eye was the following......



Who does this sound like? Giap perhaps?

Ok, if this guy (and I'll talk about him in a moment) thinks like Giap, what would he do, and this goes right back to the question posed in this thread......



Whoa! No political correctness there!

Lots of food for thought in this article and I do want to thank you for citing it, Vermillion. Now, who is this guy? I read the name and thought it sounded familar so I did a quick search on him.

You can read about hiim here.



Interesting fellow, I'd like to study this article a little more.


Aquilla

CruisingRam finally got from you what several of us have been asking. So, I can now take leave from this thread. I'm still a little fuzzy about why you don't put your career on hold, as have so many reserve and guard people, and pick up the gun, especally since you so vocally support the war. I'm not going to hold my breath for an answer. See you on another thread net2007.

Sorry, I do write a lot. That’s largely because I answer any and all questions asked of me. Say Aquilla I notice your post was quite short... Oh I see, you saved space by not addressing a single issue under contention, not trying to support or even discuss any of your assertions, and by ignoring all the points I made you could not deal with. Well, that certainly is one way to save space now isn't it...



Lord knows why you 'rolled eyes' your last posts just PROVED that point absolutely correct.



Now then: Apparently you have abandoned your 'Pulling out of Iraq increases the danger to the US' point, as you have dropped any reference of it and still refuse to supply even a shred of evidence, or for that matter, even logical argumentation as to why this is the case.

So this post you try and argue that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda.
-Though you still refuse to acknowledge that the entire unanimous opinion of the country, shaped by four independent reports all confirming you to be wrong, is against you.
-Also (unsurprisingly) you stated openly that you had 'other sources' that contradicted these reports, but when challenged to name, evidence or produce them, you abandoned that point completely and didn't respond. We will assume this is your admission that you were just lying about the existence of these 'other sources'.
-Also, you were challenged to explain or evidence how AQ would need 'encouragement' to attack the US, or how it could possibly be discouraged by the current situation. You completely abandoned that point and refused to answer as well.
-Also, you were asked to explain your initial statement: how can you believe it is a matter of 'fight them over there or fight them over here' when the US is already fighting them over here? You completely abandoned that point and refused to answer as well.

And yet, despite deliberately refusing to argue or evidence your points or answer any questions posted of you or even address points ranged against you, you still had the gall to post this little spark of true irony:



I think your own actions have shown just how hilariously hypocritical THAT comment was.



So having gone over the extensive list of points you abandoned, assertions you refused to evidence and questions you refused to answer, lets have a look at what little you DID say:







No, not even close. What you have here is an appeal for support from the people of Iraq, regardless of how much of an 'infidel' their leader is. There is certainly no indication whatsoever here of any practical or systemic links between Iraq and Bin laden.




Firstly, apparently you missed the last few words of your own post: "But Iraq apparently never responded". In other words, Bin Laden at one point investigated the possibility of links with Hussein, but was rebuffed, meaning there were no links established.

Secondly, nice bit of backtracking. So let us all be very clear here, because I don't want there to be ANY more confusion.

What, exactly, are you claiming regarding Iraq and Al Qaeda??

If you are claiming there were any tangible or systemic links at all between these two, you are absolutely and completely wrong.

If you are claiming there were no systemic or tangible links, but there was a 'nexus': in other words, Bin Laden did MENTION Iraq, and he listed the US war in Iraq as one of his motivations for his actions, then you are correct. (Though why are you still arguing then, as I happily conceded this several posts ago?) However this fact in NO WAY Supports your original contention. Remember, the reason you were arguing this point in the first place? That a US withdrawal from Iraq would make the US less safe?



So having cut-and-run from nearly every single one of your original points and every question ever asked of you, you then give us the following:




No, his plans are not at all Politically correct. They are however, politically impossible.

He wants to fight the Iraqis like the US fought on Okinawa, where over a third of the entire civilian population of the island were casualties of war.

He wants to fight like against the Germans in Northern France, except the Germans were nice enough to have uniforms, units, supply lines, and means of battling them in a strategic and tactical manner: none of which exists in a counter-insurgency.

He wants to close the Iraqi border completely: all 2267 miles of it. And how exactly does he propose that happen? Even if EVERY SINGLE combat troop were taken off duty in Iraq and placed on the borders, there would only be about 25 men per mile.

He then talks about securing US borders, because no terrorist would come in through regular controlled points: except that every one of the 9/11 bombers flew right into the country no problem...

Interesting article I agree, but not exactly full of realistic or practical suggestions.



But hey, if you want to abandon every one of your contentions and go back to the debate at hand, I'm game. Otherwise, feel free to go back and address all the points and questions you cut-and-ran from.



Edited for spelling.

'Vladimir'




Your more than welcome to call that a plan, but to me its just the lack of one. Again I'm hearing only about what we shouldn't be doing or where we shouldn't be located instead of what we should do about something we cant afford to turn our backs on.





Al Qaeda is a powerful world-spanning force in your mind and in that of George Bush.

Ok, for one we pay for foreign oil just like everyone else, secondly if Al Qaeda is in the minds of people like me or George Bush, was it in the minds of the people who died in the following events as well??

26-Feb-93
USA (New York)
First World Trade Center bombing planned by Ramzi Youssef. 6 killed, over 1000 injured.

7-Aug-98
Kenya (Nairobi) and Tanzania (Dar-es-Salaam)
Truck bomb attack against US embassies. Over 200 people killed, thousands injured.

11-Sep-01
USA (New York and Washington)
Hijacked planes crashed into the two World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. A fourth plane crashes into a field in Pittsburgh. c. 3000 killed.

You want to be the one to walk up to those who have suffered loss from events such as these and tell them it was in their minds? To you this was a pinprick as you just stated to many others particuarly on 9/11 it was more than a pinprick, it was an act of war. Take a look at some other attacks at this link......

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page7930.asp

Did we ever kill every Nazi in germany in WW2? No, Did we win the war despite this and their massive influence that dwarfed that of Al Qaeda's? Yes. We will never rid the world of all terrorism but the truth is we didnt have to rid the world of Nazi's to win WW2 but like Ive said before we have not left any lasting impression on Al Qaeda, I don't care if they are not an organized military representing a nation, they can be defeated despite this, that doesn't make them immune to defeat. Defeat means showing your enemy if you attack us on our soil we will dismantle your regime to the point that your struggle to regroup for years on end will put you in a position where you know what will happen if you do it again, thats the difference here, neither Germany or Japan has been stupid enough to launch an attack on us since WW2. However you think if we Leave now that we are going to give them any other impression than we are a country of has beens who could not defeat you, that they will not spend there time plotting a new attack? We are a joke to them right now, and they are soakin this up man, and loving every minute of our division and confusion, and to leave on that note sends a terrible message to you enemy.

Many try and make the supporters of this war out to be naive enough to think that this wont be over until we kill anyone who is a threat, thats not how most who support this war think. I'm a realist, So has our efforts over seas sparked retaliation from our enemy? Well absolutely what do you expect? What I didn't expect was for half the county to want to time travel back to 1999 rely and on intelligence, that approach failed and your saying pull troops out from not only Iraq but the whole region, I call that a recipe for disaster but you are welcome to believe what you want.







Hilary is smart I'll give her that, right now she is trying to play the swing voters and even appeal to the right wing voters by saying things like we are safer now than we were before the war, but I dont trust her, I recall her bashing Bush by saying we are less safe now, well before she decided to run for president. I also know things are obviously more complex than troop positioning, we need strong leadership. Did you however see the link I posted about our expanding our military troop capacity by 100,000 soldiers? I guess im not the only one who thinks we need to be able to deploy troops more efficiently.







They are not all layers either, or am I ignorant by thinking that as well? I'm not saying how effective my idea would be, I did mention pulling a very small fraction of people from various nations and the reserve I didn't say pull out everyone, I said 2% and lets not forget that not all American troops in the middle east are combat troops either, come to think of it we could use a variety of troops just like in any war so that point was a little moot. Look I said before I even made that suggestion that I'm no general, but I don't see why we couldn't get at least some relief from the 2.1 million troops in both the reserve and active across the globe whom are not in Iraq. Of course I'm talking to someone who thinks we shouldn't even be there so your bound to ague this for that reason alone.





I'm 24 going on 25, I think I'm too old but not positive about that. Thats the second time Ive heard that in this debate, didn't you ever see "a few good men"?
Rember this quote? "You cant handle the truth!!" just kidding, wrong quote. I was thinking more along this line. "You don't have to wear a uniform to have honor" This isn't about me having a fool hearted nature that leads me to talk about sacrifices others make without consideration for what I'm saying. I have great respect for anyone who goes out there and risk their lives to protect this country and this is part of the reason I support them winning rather than having some bureaucrat become president in 2008 only to tell them they struggled for nothing and there friends died in a fight he or she has no intention of letting them win. I want someone to take control of this and lead our boys to victory not shameful defeat rendering every life lost, lost in vein.





Do you march in protest against the war? If not pick up a sign, especally since you vocally dont support the war. I'm not going to hold my breath for an answer. See you on another thread BoF

What was that like BoF? Even if you do march in protest, I think the point is you don't have to, to not support the war, just like I don't have to Go to Iraq to support our troops, ok? Nuff said? I don't want to bicker over silliness such as this.

I believe that in order to support the war, one must make a sacrifice. Our troops are dying while fighting in Iraq. Without a sacrifice, your "support" is hollow, without meaning and, more importantly, insulting our men and women in uniform. By not making a sacrifice, you are not supporting our troops and are being singularly unpatriotic. What is your sacrifice, net2007?

Just a quick public service announcement net2007. The upper age for army enlistment is now 42.

http://www.army.com/news/item/2211

Note: I posted this earlier.

No, of you do not need to be in uniform to support the war. I'm not in uniform, and yet I support our troops in Afghanistan.

However you have done more than support the war. You have stated you are willing to throw away up to 10,000 American lives if it accomplishes anything. You have stated quite openly your willingness to throw away the lives of others. Given your passionate determination to win, and your seeming ease with sending Americans to die... one wonders why you show so much willingness to have others sacrifice and so little to perform such a sacrifice yourself.



Firstly, seriously, please stop trying to compare this war to WWII. Apart from you many errors of fact regarding that conflict, the reality is there is no compairason: this is a counter-insurgency. Compare it to Vietnam or Soviet Afghanistan.

Secodnly, of COURSE it matters that this is not an organised military representing a nation. a 'Win' was easy to define in WWII, defeat the nation, kill the leadership. Such a win is impossible by definition: you DID kill the leader of AQ in Iraq, and that hasn't slowed them down at all. This is not a conventional war and cannot be won by conventional means.

Thirdly: Iraq didn't attack the US on it's soil, so that's not exactly a 'lesson learned' now is it? And you DID dismantle the Iraqi regime, and look where it has gotten you: a morass of a failing counter-insurgency conflict.



By the way, what happened: did you miss my rather lengthy last post? Right before Vladimir, where I correct you on an assortment of factual errors.

This is as disingenuous a question as I have ever heard and it seems to be the new liberal chant here. So the question is if you are military age and you don’t “join up” you cannot support the troops and the war?

Come on please. Any citizen that is useful in the society supports all our activities including war. The famous quote “they al