It is quite possible the the CIA leakage is related to the information which generated the January report by the NSC. Where do you think the NSC got its information from. Just another way to keep the story on the front page. Just think how much money our enemies save in bribes and blackmail money by the slow drips coming from the drips at the CIA.

Take a look at this link about the problems of potential epidemics: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002132.html

When we went in chem and bio suits, antidotes, et al went in with the troops. Are they still carrying this as standard equipment? Is there any credible information that the troops have seen this in their operations?

If anybody can figure out who's side the CIA is on, please let me know. If only Kennedy could have burned it to the ground like he wanted to...

Goss purged most of the more notorious offenders when he came in, but there are still a handful of troublemakers left engaging in selective leaking for political purposes.

IIRC, forces on the move are also more easily tracked, interdicted, disrupted, and even destroyed.

So, if there is a steady influx of jihadis moving towards Iraq, especially from areas such as Europe where the internal security forces are (we hope) cooperating with us, then not only are we attracting bad guys to kill, but we may well be unraveling the routes, contact-chains, and communications links that tie these groups and people together.

Indeed, one is tempted to suggest that this is the exact opposite of what a successful insurgency requires.

IIRC, a fundamental requirement for any successful guerilla movement is some kind of sanctuary, either in-country or outside. There, forces can recuperate, rearm, gain medical attention, etc. What appears to be happening here is that guerillas are leaving their sanctuary (Europe, Saudi, etc.) in order to attack us. IF we can keep them from exiting again (by killing, capturing, or hobbling them), then they are more vulnerable.

A cautionary note, however: Did the Soviets conclude, in Afghanistan, that they were engaged in some kind of "flypaper" strategy? Were they confident that they could kill off mujaheddin faster than they could be replaced?

Of course, the Soviets didn't even try to bring the population to their side, but it would be useful to consider what the Soviets thought their strengths and weaknesses in that COIN campaign were.

Lurking Observer,

Absolutely agreed on the added benefits pointed out above. The very recent arrests in Spain, Britain and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that hidden lines of communication and support cells are inevitably exposed.

The Soviet Union was attempting to subjugate the population and make Afghanistan a satellite state, not to draw in further foreign fighters or engage the region as an agent of change. I don't think this is the proper comparison.

I spent a lot of time last year arguing, on this site, about trend lines - i.e. that the trend lines did not look good.

However, if you now go Brooking Institutions Iraq Index Archive, it seems clear either one of two things are happening.

1. The apex of the insurgency was reached at the end of last year, before the election, and that since then there has been a decline.
2. There was a retreat after the election, that is ramping up, very slowly.

The numbers seem to indicate 1, however. I wish I could find a comment I had last year that said something like "everything looks pretty bleak, at this point, I'm hoping for the elections to work their magix elixir" or some such.

I'm going to validate my reality-based perception. From the beginning, my positions were:

1. Invade Afghanistan - yes, in favor - and it's worked out fairly well, with an international effort, logistically and militarily.

2. Invade Iraq.

a. I'd always said that Iraq would fall quickly. Bill Clinton was on some show in February, and when asked "how long would it take for Iraq to fall", he said something like "oh, probably within a month", and I believed him.

BUT

b. I didn't believe that the supposed WMD's were a threat, and definitely not a threat to this nation.
c. I had read a lot of the reporting of the "lack of a plan"
d. I had great unease about the tribal mix in Iraq.
3. I didn't think we could get the international support we got in Afghanistan.

Because of the above, I was against the Iraq invasion.

So far, I'm batting pretty good, in terms of outcomes matching what I thought would happen.

Long term, I'm STILL uneasy about the tribal mix. I'm pretty sure that the Kurds want their own nation, and won't be satisfied with being part of Iraq - now just because they won't be satisfied, will they ACCEPT it, long term?

I don't know.

I'm still uneasy about the drawing in of other nations, especially if US forces leave. NOT meddling seems beyond the capability of Turkey, Iran, etc, if the US is not a counter-weight with real forces.

But at any rate, for the last six months, signs have been much better than they were last year.

So cross my fingers!

Oh, regarding the flypaper theory.

You are incorrect. It's not like there is a limited supply of these folks. More can, and have, been created because of Iraq. Right now it is Iraq. At some point, God willing, Iraq becomes peaceful, there will be a diaspora, as the CIA report suggests.

Then all the internal security stuff - ports, etc BETTER become a higher priority than they have been until now.

That would be one logical reaction to a diaspora, JC. Another would be to try to induce or force them into a theater of conflict that is similarly disadvantageous to them over the long term. And depending on one's exact choices, it may be possible to do both.

JC

You are wrong. There is a limited supply of these folks. Ultimately this madness will run its course. The jihadists do not reflect the real aspirations of the great majority of Muslims in the Middle East or anywhere. They will continue to make things ugly, perhaps for a long time, but, if we persevere--God willing--if Iraq, and, Lebanon, and then other countries in the region begin to enjoy the benfits of democratic government and civil society, in time the base of The Base will evaporate--die off, go into hiding, end up on posters in the rooms of undergraduates. Where are the Nazis, the Anarchist, the Maoists, the Gueverristas etc, etc, etc. They are infinitesimal in their importance and influence--except in history books.

alot of foreign jihadis have died in Iraq, including Saudis, Syrians, and now North Africans. OTOH Iraq MAY have contributed to some borderline would be jihadis deciding to take the plunge. Combat experience theyve seen in Iraq, but its not clear to me how many actually survive that experience (in contrast to the FREs and other Iraqi insurgents, whose way of fighting is different, and less suicidal) So I see evidence for flypaper AND for the reverse. For now Id call it a wash, unless I see something more definitive. IF we win in Iraq, and create a democracy, that will be much more important than few extra jihadis recruited. OTOH if we do get bogged down into a quagmire (which i dont expect, but cant quite rule out) then we'll need a pretty massive flypaper effect to make it look worthwhile.

liberalhawk,

Welcome back. I was hoping you hadn't entirely given up on us.

I think it is safe to say the 300 killed and 400 captured in country is a conservative estimate. And this doesn't count those killed or captured outside of Iraq's borders in transit.

I do hope I communicated clearly that it is both a training ground and a magnet. I am of the opinion agreement that all signs point to the benefits outweighing the costs at this time, as I see Iraq moving in the right direction. I am also of the opinion that a good number of the borderline jihadis would likely sign up for another cause if Iraq wasn't an option. These guys need to be addressed one way or another, and why not in Iraq where we can strike at them.

JC: More can, and have, been created because of Iraq.

More terrorists are "created" every day that the temperature is above freezing in Amman and Riyadh. If it's not one grievance it's another, and if by some miracle no grievances existed, they would dig into the past for grievances to kill for.

The problem with the "breeding ground" theory is that terrorists breed in any kind of ground, including our own, and if there is any correlation between the number of grievances and the number of terrorists nobody has proved it.

Glen,, its part of the leftist mythos, that somehow the Islamic Jihad that destroyed the bystantium cumulated in the ottoman empire and begot the crusades only began yesterday with the war with Iraq.

They are still pissed at us for their defeat at the gates of Vienna Sept 11 1683.

Im still asking, why did we become the airforce for Jihad in Kosovo ?

The so called mass graves was a leftist media fraud, do you know why the case in the world court is not going well ? why none of the charges are holding up ?

Why Melosovic might die from old age at trial because endless trial without end still cant gather evidence to convict him ?

The supply of everything is limited but if even hairdressers get into the action than i suggest that the supply is mostly due to recent American madness and not because of islam. If America stops behaving so mad in Iraq than this will mostly die down.

Bring Out Your Dead
Let us not forget that “what does not kill us makes us stronger”. True for terrorists also true for the US militaries ability to prosecute operations in urban terrain. But let us kill them none the less. This symmetry is not mentioned by the traitors in the agency. Porter Goss has his hands full. PoGo’s dilemma; “Weez seenz da enemy…and they is us”.

No such parallel concerns for the forbearers of that ‘noble’ conflict, WWII. The ‘insurgents’ that will survive OIF will be the shirkers who stayed low and away from the action or bad@sses indeed. But to say that we are manufacturing terrorists is absurd. The fact is, many young Arabs grew up indoctrinated in the lore of the Mujahadeen and would join the fight regardless of who it was against… just so long as victory and honor were achieved. The go to Iraq, go to heaven program is less likely to sell with the young crowd. Till then, bring it on.

"I was hoping you hadn't entirely given up on us."

Unfortunately Dan posts some stuff here and nowhere else. I find his stuff is very good, even when I disagree. And he focuses on the War on Terrorism, and not on the War on Liberalism. Its best to simply avoid Joes own posts, which largely focus on the WoL. Yours are mixed, quite frankly.

For my most current take on the "The war is over" debate, see my comment today on Belgravia.

Despite what you might think, I am not fighting "the War on Liberalism". Quite frankly, it is a shame you are so thin skinned you cannot recognize an honest critique of the Democrat Party leadership's effect on the war.

we will have to agree to disagree about whether that critique was honest. And i hardly think Im thin-skinned - without rehashing that debate, i think you can at least acknowledge that I remained calm, and stuck to discussion of facts and logic.

BTW, did you ever find a cite for Harry Reid calling for withdrawl from Iraq?

and its not really question of the exact nature of your critique. In my experience over the last four years, nothing is gained in discussions of the war by adding discussions of the politics of the war. It would be as if, when discussing, say, the effects of tariffs on wage levels, we segued to a discussion of which party is truely protectionist or not. It would add little to the discussion of the technical question. It would detract from it. Now, there are plenty of sites, dozens in fact, that address partisan politics, including defending and attacking parties, individuals, etc for theire stances, including wrt Iraq, etc. There are very few that regularly provide good information, with both detail AND broad perspective, on the WoT. And a degree of reason and balance. Even fewer are multiperson sites. It is a shame when one of the few such sites, devotes so much time to things best addressed elsewhere. And to things which inevitably divide people who must stand together.

Face it Bill. I AM a Democrat. I ACCEPT that my party is a coalition including people who dont share my view of Iraq. Nothing you (or plenty of other people) have said has yet changed my mind and that. Attacking people like me for not repudiating those in my party i disagree with, is NOT going to help build a bipartisan coalition to support the war. Im not sure why I cant get you to see that. To be fair, there ARE Republicans who DO see that, and that makes me much more positive about the Republican party than i otherwise would be.

Hey LH, drop me an e-mail sometime. I'd do the same, but you don't list your addy ...

I am telling you that I want a strong Democratic party when it comes to national defense, liberhawk. What do I need to do, give you a freakin' contract in my blood? If you won't accept my word on this issue, there really isn't any need for me to carry on a conversation with you any longer. I could give two wits about domestic politics. Mistakes in this realm can be corrected.

I never said Harry Reid called for the withdarawal from Iraq. Your constant harping on that does you no good.

Its your party that has made the war political, and destroyed any bipartisanship with its constant negative rhetoric towards the mission AND the military. If you can't or won't recognize it, then I can do little to help.

I personally wish the war didn't involved domestic politics, but the Democrats have made it about that, and they need to be called to the table for it when the time is appropriate. If you can't see that these very poisonous elements need to be ejected before Democrats are taken seriously again, what can I say? Maintain your silence and you will, rightly or wrongly be viewed as approving of their words. Its a simple fact of human nature.

So what is your point? Do you have an opinion?

liberalhawk: "For my most current take on the "The war is over" debate, see my comment today on Belgravia."

Searched for "liberalhawk "

No pages were found containing "liberalhawk ".

If you think what you said is relevant here, could you say it here, please? I'm sure you have a post there somewhere. I am not doubting your capacity to say interesting things. I'm just not interested to go on a scavenger hunt.