I wish everyone, especially generals, would stop saying we "almost got" or "are closing in on" Zarqawi, or bin Ladin, or whoever.

Nobody needs to know this if it's true, and if it turns out not to be true, or not to lead to a result, it makes the source and the report look stupid. Unless it's all disinformation to affect the behavior of the target. I don't believe that, and I don't believe we're good at it if someone is trying it.

I don't need to know that Zarqawi might be in Western Anbar. I don't need to know he might be wounded. I'll be delighted when he's captured or killed. Until then, STFU, thank you very much.

If you don't want to know, then don't read the news, aptly named commenter. Some of us have an interest in these things. And it is helpful to put the recent deaths of hi ranking al Qaeda into perspective.

For some fun, head on over to the Huffington Post to see the liberals completely baffled at the very concept
of the flypaper "theory" or the idea that we may have gasp put the Shiites in control of Mesopotamia.

The fly paper strategy has been attacked, generally on the following lines:

1.The secret strategy was never announced to the public as a justification for war. I'll let the irony of that settle in for the next few seconds...
2.We may kill off AQ members and leaders, but we are creating more than we are killing off. That is certainly a much talked about effect, but it has serious problems. Just because a jihadi is presently in Syria and gets lured into Iraq doesnt mean he was peaceably herding sheep and finally snapped. The terrorists funnelling into Iraq would have been dangerous had we never gone to war. The opposition has been very disingenuous by only argueing the costs of war but never recognizing the costs of no-war. In general it is better to meet the enemy at a time and place of your chosing instead of theirs. The Lebanese anti-Syrian faction has been one benefiter of every jihadi in the ME eyeballing Iraq, to name one example.
3.We are losing to AQ in Iraq. This is just an absurdity. If we are close to losing anywhere it is domestically in the US and in the halls of Congress.

#3 Jim Peterson

That is funny. Starting with the author's first paragraph. A choice extract:

One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks.

'nuff said.

Guys, You're missing the point. You're preaching to the choir over here. Please read things here and then go post comments at Huffington. There are a lot of "independents" over there. :-)

I don't like leaving a fight like the one going on between me and 300 leftists. But I have kids to feed and work to do.

The problem with conservatives is that we work for a living. We have lives. The journalists get us that way. And they steal our daughters minds when we are not looking. I will walk away from the Rove thread at Huffington and they will all just pile on to have the last word.

This Kirstin woman is the wife of a 9-11 victim. That makes her a bullet-proof left wing saint the way Kerry was a war hero.

Wait a second. Tommy Frank's initial plan was to cut down very quickly to around 40,000 troops and get the hell out of dodge by September 2003. That means if there had not been an insurgency, the whole Iraq venture would have been a failure, by the lights of the "flytrap" doctrine, because we wouldn't have lured the flies there and killed large numbers of insurgents?

Suppose there are two paths to victory now: one path which involves killing 4,000 insurgents, and one path which involves killing 15,000. By the light of the "flytrap" doctrine, we should deliberately choose the path that involves more killing, because it means we'll be eliminating more potential terrorists?

I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't.

Well Roublen, since the terrorists we're fighting are fanatical lunatics who can't be deterred and with whom we can't reason, I'd say the more killing of terrorists we do the better. And the fact that the "flypaper effect," if true, is an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't.

Roublen

Roughly 60 million do, and roughly 3 don't.

Look, I know it's terribly naive, but I do actually think that we went into Iraq to forestall a WMD attack on this country. I don't think any president acting responsibly could have taken the chance of a small nuclear device being detonated in NY or DC or even SF or LA--not just in terms of his constitutional obligation to preserve and defend, but politically . . .

Now we are there, and yes, the violent-minded are coming to kill or be killed. Unfortunately, some of our best and bravest are also dying, but the bottom line is that terrorist are being dispatched before they can kill massive numbers of innocent people in other parts of the world, including the US, AND for gravy, an oppressed and brutalized people are being given an opportunity to create a society with the potential for decency, security and prosperity--all thanks to US, that's us. And as gravy on the gravy, other oppressed peoples in the region seeing that what is possible in Iraq are beginning to reach out to grab the same opportunities as the Iraqis are finding at hand. In the meantime, terrorist are giving us a choice: allow them to destroy us or dispatch them to Paradise. On their terms, I am sorry to say, it's a win/win.

Especially after spending a while talking with an UAE exchange student at CU, I feel all the above "flypaper" comments ignore the powerful forces of nationalism and anti-imperialism (probably a banned word on WOC, but too lazy to find a synomym).
This kid (and probably millions like him) did not like Saddam, but is angered and outraged at the US crossing the globe to impose its' will on the Middle East. His basic point is that the people of the Middle East should settle their political futures without interference and domination from the US.
He is no "terrorist" or "jihadi" yet he has sympathy with Iraqi insurgents.

By all accounts, many of the "foreign fighters" flooding into Iraq are not hardened jihadis, but idealistic and often naive youth who perceive the US invasion/occupation as an injustice that should be attacked. None of us can know how many of these people would have become fighters without the US intervention but it seems undeniable that the invasion/occupation precipitated the involvement of many,at least by their own accounts.

If your flypaper also breeds flies, is it really functioning as pest-control?

If the US had a dictatorial regime which was overthrown by an invading and occupying power, how many of us would be violently resisting the occupier, even if a democratic system was being slowly implemented under the auspices of the occupation?

roublen vesseau: "I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't."

I can't tell you, because I don't know. I don't know, because there are no opinion polls on this.

My opinion is that the enemy fights us because they have hate (from their religion) and hope - to satisfy that hatred in our destruction (from contemporary circumstances). We have to flog that hope out of them. Only when they despair will their determination to slaughter us slacken.

Everybody is human before they are democratic, Muslim or anything else, and human flesh, blood and spirit have limits. We have to exceed those limits, so that the furious malignity of our enemies flags and fails, and we survive the long global storm of Islamic hatred.

To beat the hope out of our enemies, we need to achieve political results laudable and useful for us and as repugnant as possible for them. Since they hate democracy and we love it, democracy in Iraq is a perfect goal. They think Islam and democracy are incompatible, that those who gravitate towards democracy are drawing away from the spirit of Islam, and that democracy, sexy and whiskey can in the long run corrupt and weaken Islam. I agree. I can't think of a more moral way to make the political outcomes of jihad as repugnant as possible for our enemies, and as heartening as possible for us. I think George W. Bush's democracy-promotion campaign is perfect, and will make him one of the great heroes of Western history. Ave George!

To beat the hope out of our enemies, we need to achieve prestige victories. We are consistently failing in this goal through mildness. Fallujah should have been a terrifying example of the price of atrocities against Americans, instead of which it was a huge prestige victory for the enemy, because we backed off, giving the field - and the glory, and a base for terror operations - to the foe. We promised to put Muqtada al-Sadr in prison or in his grave, yet he walks around free. It is of great importance that we punish not only spectacularly but inexorably. That goal is now out of reach. Anyway, we still have to achieve big, public prestige victories - like Saddam Hussien dragged out of his spider-hole and photographed - at every opportunity.

To beat the hope out of our enemies, finally we need attrition. Kill jihadis, kill jihadis, kill more jihadis. A thousand dead is better than a hundred dead, ten thousand is better than one thousand, a hundred thousand is better than ten thousand - you get the idea. We need World War One style casualties - the kind that bleed nations white and permanently affect their cultures. The more jihadis are killed and maimed, the better, absolutely.

Our enemies' final hope is nuclear terrorism of course. I leave that issue aside for now, as it poses special problems.

I also leave aside the internal problems of the West, mainly mad demographics and a suicidal culture. I am not one of those who think we should turn against ourselves and fight a culture war first, and deal with Islam later. I think we haven't got the time, for one thing.

In sum: from my point of view flypaper makes perfect sense and I see happy goodness in every link.

If your flypaper also breeds flies, is it really functioning as pest-control?

Perhaps it is that there are more flies to begin with than we thought, rather than them "breeding".

"Suppose there are two paths to victory now: one path which involves killing 4,000 insurgents, and one path which involves killing 15,000. By the light of the "flytrap" doctrine, we should deliberately choose the path that involves more killing, because it means we'll be eliminating more potential terrorists?

I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't.
"

This is typical of thinking from those who dont understand warfare. Victory isnt about who kills more of the enemy. Raw numbers mean little. Victory is achieved by breaking the will of the enemy, and that can be done without killing the enemy at all in a 'perfect battle', as Sun Tzu would tell you. Realistically, establishing a free and democratic Iraq despite AQ pouring every resource and losing hundreds of fighters is and will be a major psychological defeat. This is the battle they have been trying to draw the US into, an Afghanistan or Vietnam. The fact that they will lose this fight when it was their best shot at defeating a US army in the open field (so to speak) will be a mortal blow to jihadis everywhere. Killing is really only incidental. Proving to the enemy that their deaths are fruitless is the ultimate victory. It means you dont have to kill them any more. On the other hand not engaging the enemy emboldens him and allows him to attack when and where he choses. Such as Manhattan.

Tom Volckhausen: "By all accounts, many of the "foreign fighters" flooding into Iraq are not hardened jihadis, but idealistic and often naive youth who perceive the US invasion/occupation as an injustice that should be attacked. None of us can know how many of these people would have become fighters without the US intervention but it seems undeniable that the invasion/occupation precipitated the involvement of many,at least by their own accounts."

Up to a certain point, hitting the enemy back can sting him to increased fury, and if you want only to minimize his fury in the short run, the thing to do is to remain passive under his blows and act - pretty much the way people on hijacked jets used to be told to act.

Only we now know how that story ends. We are up against a fundamentally genocidal foe. Our enemies are pitiless and evil beyond limit. If the cowed children of Beslan were not innocent and harmless enough to escape Muslim slaughter, how could we ever be? We can't be. Going quietly, while it may in each moment minimize the immediate fury and violence of the enemy, is not an option as far as I am concerned.

I do not care about the sweet, youthful naivity of those intent on our slaughter. If they would have left their support for jihad terrorists intent on the worst possible harm to us at some lower level of personal activity provided we never fought back, that's not good enough.

While pinprick violence only stimulates the enemy's fury, pushing casualties higher and higher can have the opposite effect. Let's push. How hard, and how far? Whatever it takes.

"By all accounts, many of the "foreign fighters" flooding into Iraq are not hardened jihadis, but idealistic and often naive youth who perceive the US invasion/occupation as an injustice that should be attacked"

I've seen reports exactly the opposite. The major interview of a Syrian jihadi recenty (somebody remind me which paper, WaPO?) showed that he had been terrorist training since before 911, and that there is a network of jihadis throughout the ME, some of which he literally celebrated 911 with. If this war has taught us anything, its that there is a regional terror network, and it can marshall resources for terrorist attacks throughout the region and beyond. Draining that swamp has been a major achievement, not to mention the hard core AQ fighters we have killed and captured.

By all accounts, many of the "foreign fighters" flooding into Iraq are not hardened jihadis, but idealistic and often naive youth who perceive the US invasion/occupation as an injustice that should be attacked.

I would question the judgment of anyone making such a statement. The behavior of someone who would leave their country so that they can either be suicide bombers, place anonymous bombs intended to create maximum collateral damage, or to try and ambush groups of people without a care as to whether they are soldiers or civilians can be described in many terms, but none of them include either "idealism", nor "naivete".

Tom Volckhausen

The problem I have with letting the Middle East decide on its own how its wants to evolve is that there is absolutely no space for the 'nice guys' like the UAE student to eventually arrive at a liberal/secular/democratic government. The minute anyone would even begin to publicly contemplate the idea, the thugs would just murder them.

Someone, e.g., the US, needs to provide those who want a better government some space in which to operate. Many, like the above mentioned student, find this humiliating, but I don't believe there is any other way to actually achieve actual results in a reasonable time frame.

Tom Volkhausen: This kid (and probably millions like him) did not like Saddam, but is angered and outraged at the US crossing the globe to impose its' will on the Middle East. His basic point is that the people of the Middle East should settle their political futures without interference and domination from the US.

Like they did in Afghanistan?

The Sauds rule because the people say so? Mubarak rules because the people say so?

Do you have the slightest idea how many would have killed in Iraq if "the people" had decided to settle their political future with Saddam, with no help from evil Imperialist Americans?

Assuming you care, want to dig up all the dead Kurds and Shi'ites and ask them?

BTW, Tom -

Mohammed at Iraq the Model has some info on the beating your invincible "nationalists" are taking:

"In the north, 3 members of the Ansar Al-Sunna army were captured in Mosul; one of the 3 terrorists carried a Saudi ID."

"Iraqi TV announced Khalid Sulaiman Darwis (aka Abu Al-Ghadia Al-Soori) was killed during a raid as part of Operation Spear in Anbar province. The Syrian terrorist is one of the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq."

"In Zangora area near Ramadi, Iraqi and American troops arrested a terror cell leader named 'Jbair Grayen Al-Jiblawi who's one of Zarqawi's aides in Anbar province." [Zarqawi, of course, is a Jordanian and I'll bet al-Jiblawi is not an Iraqi either]

Mohammed concludes:

I'm positive that Iraqis have no intention of giving up and so do their allies and friends while those who think that our position is weak are actually allowing lies and illusions to control their thinking and were driven away from the larger image by the narrow image provided by the media. The future is ours, there's no doubt about that and we shall win.

Now, that's what a real nationalist sounds like.

roublen - I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't.

Husayn at Democracy in Iraq answers the mail he has received from the Compassionate Left (who care sooooooo much about Iraq) and gives his blunt version of the Flytrap:

... let me remind my friends, and these enemies of mine that progress is being made, slowly, but surely in Iraq. Yesterday we learned that the terrorists have lost more men this month than in any other month. That is not progress? The more of them that die, the closer we come to absolute freedom. They are like roaches that must be stepped on, and the more that we step on the less there are to eat at us later, and the less there are to breed more!

This is typical of thinking from those who dont understand warfare. Victory isnt about who kills more of the enemy. Raw numbers mean little. Victory is achieved by breaking the will of the enemy, and that can be done without killing the enemy at all in a 'perfect battle', as Sun Tzu would tell you. Realistically, establishing a free and democratic Iraq despite the US pouring every resource and losing hundreds of fighters is and will be a major psychological defeat.

I think the major problem the US has with Iraq is that Americans believe that they are the good guys, that the US wants a democratic Iraq etc.
I seriously doubt that many Arabs believe that the US wants a democratic and free Iraq. I think the Arabs believe that the US wants to make Iraq into a colony (not an official one but something akin to the satelites of the USSR) in which the people can vote but not decide.

This kid (and probably millions like him) did not like Saddam, but is angered and outraged at the US crossing the globe to impose its' will on the Middle East. His basic point is that the people of the Middle East should settle their political futures without interference and domination from the US.

I agree. Middle Eastern people should settle their political futures without our involvement. But they don't. Instead, having sat around doing nothing about it for decades, they get pissy when someone else does it for them. As if they were about to overthrow Saddam, but we got there first.

Part of this is wounded pride at being unable to do it themselves. By supporting the murder of Americans, they seek to redeem the honour of Arabs.

I'd like to know how many conservatives and supporters of the war really, truly, believe in the flytrap doctrine of "the more killing, the better", and how many don't.

Simple answer. Most conservatives believe that Arabs are untermenschen and as such any reason to kill Arabs is a good reason.

Do you have the slightest idea how many would have killed in Iraq if "the people" had decided to settle their political future with Saddam, with no help from evil Imperialist Americans?

They tried it in 1975 and 1991 but "the people" are not the kind of "the people" the US wants to see in power. Atleast France could help Kurdistan gain autonomy. You could claim that they tried it in 2003 but the US couldn't get 2000 Iraqi's to betray their country. You could claim that Saddam was worse than Americans but somehow i big to doubt that. Saddam never did a crime as big as Fallujah

ps. Is Saddam the only anti communist leader that the CIA didn't help with its coup.

Saddam never did a crime as big as Fallujah

Not being a Marshal, I'm not sure where exactly the line is drawn. But that to me sounds like it crosses any line worth having.

As would the 'untermenschen' comment.

If stupid were a crime, a. would have received the death penalty long ago. Stupid isn't a crime, however - check our comments policy. He is thus free to spew his fact-free rants from the Netherlands.

And really, having an opponent this dumb, who makes basic mistakes of fact with stunning regularity (The BOERS won the Boer War? - chortle), is a gift.

I mean, in the same post a. contends that Saddam, who was a Soviet client for over 30 years, and whose most admired figure was Joseph Stalin, is... wait for it... an anti-communist.

Contemplate how hard we'd have to work in order to make our enemies look ridiculous without his help. As a bonus, serious liberals can fry him without feeling like they're letting down the side, providing an invaluable form of comments section target drone.

He's irreplaceable.

He's irreplaceable.

No doubt about that.

However, accusing American conservatives of Nazi tendencies towards genocide, and the de facto denial of Saddam's barbaric crimes...

Standard Euroleftist agitprop.

I don't know. Perhaps being in Europe, I don't see the positives in having his sort around. But I'll defer to your judgement.

What was the first thing the Baathists did. (it includes communists and walls)

What was the first thing the Baathists did.

Killed their rivals, communists included. But also pan-Arabists, monarchists, etc.

Presumably the assassination of Trotsky, and the destruction of the non-Leninist Marxist groups in the Soviet Union, proves that the USSR was anti-communist, too?

a: What was the first thing the Baathists did.

One of the first things the Baathists did after the 1968 coup was to reconcile with the Iraqi Communist Party.

The ICP had been repressed after the 1963 coup, because communist militia had been used by the regime to kill political opponents, including Baathists. A large number of Baathists were also killed or arrested after 1963, because of their ties to the Soviet Communist Party.

Hussein, anxious to suck up to the folks who make T-62 tanks (guess which country that is?) smoked a peace pipe with the communists (if "a" has ever been to Amsterdam's Red Light district he might be familiar with the custom).

This was successful, and Iraq signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1972. Soon he was up to his thick neck in Russian tanks and military advisors, and almost lived happily ever after.

You done got it all mixed around backwards again, a. It's because of people like you that Russian tanks don't have a reverse gear.

Has anyone seen a post here or elsewhere that lays out the logic "flypaper" theory? If so, can you please point me to it. I am generally sympathetic to the theory but also recognize that I have not thought it all the way through. thanks in advance.

Colt,

I'm with Joe on this issue. a provides me with endles entertainment with his "knowledge" of history and the Middle East. He allows folks like Robin, Glen and a host of others to debunk the various crackpot theories he entertains. I see one of his comment pop in my inbox, smile and wonder who will dismantle the latest nonsense first.

starling -

Bill Roggio's earlier article on flypaper is here. Another article from Captain's Quarters.

The US wanted to topple Saddam (regime change), to accept an unconditional surrender, ferret out WMDs, and then get the hell out of Iraq. Nation building wasn’t the stated goal. Now, the Saddam loyalists could have kept a low profile and really let loose once the US had extricated itself from the region, but in came the rest of the Jihadists who wanted to spill American blood.

Now some are surprised that Iran or Syria did not overtly jump into the fold also. If they were really itching for a fight, they would have.

Logic dictates that it is better to fight ‘em there that to fight ‘em here. But whether the fly paper theory was some secret plan that solely justified the war is moot. If the Jihadists are willing to travel across the ME to kill Americans, then by all means let’s kill as many as we can. But it would’ve been a greater success for the Bush administration if they could have affected “regime change” without a costly occupation. Such is the law of unexpected consequences.

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.

Starling
The flypaper theory is attributed to Ralph Peters in a NY Post column from 2003, I think. If you Google Peters +Iraq +flypaper, you could be reading til morning.

Ralph Peters' piece in the New York Post on flypaper is gone, but here (link) is his piece in praise of attrition.

I think we should fight a war of attrition, to supplement the moral effect of our political and prestige victories (that's my idea), and for a variety of other good reasons that Peters gives, the main one being "It isn’t a question of whether or not we want to fight a war of attrition against religion-fueled terrorists. We’re in a war of attrition with them. We have no realistic choice. Indeed, our enemies are, in some respects, better suited to both global and local wars of maneuver than we are."

Without flypaper of some kind, fighting jihad international is like chasing dandelions, but much more unpleasant. "They have a world in which to hide, and the world is full of targets for them. They do not heed laws or boundaries. They make and observe no treaties. They do not expect the approval of the United Nations Security Council. They do not face election cycles." They can "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." When we go after them as individual criminals, it's likely to lead to humiliating and disadvantageous consequences. The policing model of chasing the enemy on their terms is no good, we already had a thread on this (link) , and I think there's more to be said on that.

Whatever we use to fix them so we can kill and injure them in adequate numbers - which will never be too great to suit me - is flypaper. Flypaper: good.

"Saddam never did a crime as big as Fallujah"

And they say Americans are uneducated and stupid. If this is a result of European education a lot things start making sense. American kids may not be able to find Belgium on a map, but there's a reason for that. They dont need to. On the other hand knowing the crimes of one of the most brutal dictators of the last half century might come in handy some day. Like today.

#11 from David Blue,

I thought Fallujah was a very prestige victory. We start. We stop. We start again and finish the job. Staligrad was a prestige victory for the Russians because they were victorious. It is victory that confers prestige. Driving the enemy from the field. The rule is obvious. What jihadis take they can't keep.

We took it at a time and place of our choosing after emptying it of most civilians.

Attacks against the US military are defeated with heavy losses to the enemy. Attacks against Iraqi police and Army are not working the way they once did.

This is more like strangulation than shock and awe. In any case shock and awe is useful against ordinary armies. It does not work against fanatics.

#21 a,

It matters not a whit what Arabs think. It is what Iraqis think that counts.

On that score I think you have been given the purple finger.

#26 from Joe Katzman,

You got a ROTFLMAO on that one.

"a" as a target drone.

Perhaps he has his own flypaper strategy. Only he is a rhetorical bullet magnet.

#35,

I think it was David Warren. Surprisingly enough a Canadian. Works for MSM too.

#39 If you want to use the flytrap theory than it is very important what non Iraqi Arabs think. Those are the people you are trapping in your "flytrap".
If you only get Bin Laden's hencemen than you can claim that it's working but if most of them were not Bin Laden's hencemen but after thought after the US invaded Iraq "Bin Laden is right, i join his band of merry men" than your theory isn't right.

#36 Who cares were they hid. Everything is alright as long as they can't do anything because they are hidding.

#38 from M. Simon: "I thought Fallujah was a very prestige victory. We start. We stop. We start again and finish the job. Staligrad was a prestige victory for the Russians because they were victorious. It is victory that confers prestige. Driving the enemy from the field. The rule is obvious. What jihadis take they can't keep."

Second Fallujah was great. First Fallujah, with the start, stop, and long pause leaving the field to the enemy, was bad.

"We took it at a time and place of our choosing after emptying it of most civilians."

Taking Fallujah "at a time and place our choosing" sounds like empty words to me.

"Attacks against the US military are defeated with heavy losses to the enemy. Attacks against Iraqi police and Army are not working the way they once did."

And that's good.

"This is more like strangulation than shock and awe. In any case shock and awe is useful against ordinary armies. It does not work against fanatics."

I fully agree. But for strangulation, I want relentlessness - no backing off.

During the Second World War, the Emperor of Japan eventually lost patience with his generals enough to break protocol. They had told him over and over of the wonderful results they were about to achieve. But he told them: over and over when the Americans land you say you are going to drive them off, but every single time the Americans consolidate and hold the island. Every single time. What have you to say to that? And they had nothing to say to that.

The Imperial Japanese had nothing to learn from anybody, ever, on fanaticism, but even they felt the strangling pressure of "every single time". That's what I want.

Our enemies now are acutely sensitive to victory and glory or misery and humiliation. I think there would have been more hope of eroding their morale than of cracking Japanese morale if we were utterly, utterly relentless. But we haven't been. We back off, we give them occasions to cheer, let-offs, chances to back away without excessive humiliation. I want us to stop doing that. Our enemies are sensitive to misery and humiliation, and they should get it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, every day of every year, on any and every issue, no matter how symbolic, no matter how pretty.

When we achieve a result, such as driving the enemy from the field, that inflicts outstanding misery and humiliation on the enemy, so that they lose face, and possibly fund-raising and recruiting might become harder for them, if not immediately then in the long run - that is what I mean by a prestige victory. We took prestige from the enemy, and hopefully we gave some of it to ourselves. It is like raising a trophy or counting coup.

Against our present foe (though not against, say, Joe Stalin) I think prestige victories are a big deal. Humiliating the enemy is worthwhile, regardless of attrition, and regardless of any conventional strategic objectives attained or not attained.

What I am advocating, in all seriousness, is a policy of Full Service Hostility ™: sustained, systematic, global and pervasive bloody-mindedness - to struggle not only for things that matter to rational minds, but over matters of mere prestige that should only distress irrational minds, such as our enemies actually have. To inflict misery and humiliation on our enemies merely for the sake of doing so. To inflict death and injuries on our enemies - to return to the flypaper concept - as ends in themselves, quite aside from our strategic objectives such as democracy in Iraq. I think this will have useful long-term effects on our irrational enemies.

These are not the Japanese. They are not that good. Historically, they've been slowly beaten into quiescence before. I think we can do it again.

flypaper:

1. Probably not generating more jihadis in Syria or KSA, just drawing them in and killing them. Put probably ARE generating Jihadis among IRAQIS (all those Fallujah Wahabis who were under Saddams thumb, or doing his smuggling for him) who we may end up killing in KSA, or wherever - which is the bigger factor - i doubt anybody really knows, CIA, or anyone else. Too soon, too foggy.

2. Where do you want to kill them? Why in Iraq, why not IN KSA, etc. Cause they come out and are more easily gotten in Iraq, instead of underground doing nefarious deeds in KSA, etc. Which would be great if we were nabbing them at the border. But we're not. Theyre doing plenty of harm first. US casualties, which are NOT good for the GWOT. And badly hurting the people of Iraq, which is NOT good for making democracy attractive in the region.

3. Which is probably trumped if we get a MAJOR baddie. But we havent. number 24 on the Saudi list, for crying out loud? Some second tier Al tawhid types? Hell, the much maligned Pakis do as well as that, or even the Euros with their sissy LE approach. Without all the costs of the war.

4. My general sense is its probably a wash - not the cause for alarm some make out, but certainly not the strategic aim of the war. But thats its too soon to say, really. And I dont see what the point is. We're THERE, whatever the reason to go in was, and we MUST win.

Rashood wasn't #24, he was the 24th killed or captured, and the #2 'ideologue' on KSA's list.

Darwish was a major al Qaeda player. And I would argue the leader of Ansar al-Sunnah is as well.

al Qaeda's mddle management is taking a beating n Iraq, and these are the guys that we need to eliminate to disrupt the organization.

I'm more interested in us chewing up lots and lots of Mister Big-enoughs, as opposed to catching just a couple of Mister Bigs. Of course, I want them too, for the prestige value.

liberalhawk: "And I dont see what the point is. We're THERE, whatever the reason to go in was, and we MUST win."

That I agree with. There is no need for the flypaper argument to justify what we are doing now. If attrition had no value for us at all, we'd still have to do all the same things we're doing, because we dare not lose this, we absolutely have to win it.

"al Qaeda's mddle management is taking a beating n Iraq, and these are the guys that we need to eliminate to disrupt the organization."

AQ middle management vs Second tier Al tawhid. You say potatoe,.....

Im not denying we're getting some folks. But you could as well say AQ middle management has taken a beating in Pakistan - more than just middle management there. The sissy Euros have bagged a fair number of middle managers too, IIUC. And the Saudis bagged most of their list IN KSA, no flypaper needed.

Im NOT saying we shouldnt tote up these guys as gains when we bag them. I just think that overall this isnt a real useful meme.

but thanks for the Darwish call out.

Darwish was 1st tear Tahwid, and by extension senior al Qaeda management. Rashood was top teir al Qaeda in the KSA, and by extension senior al Qaeda management. Abu Talha was chief of Nasar al Islam, and by extension senior al Qaeda management. But draw your little lines and play your semantics games as you see fit.

If you want to ignore the interrelatinship between Tahwid, etc. then feel free to do so, but then you are refusing to understand the nature of al Qaeda and its workings with other Islamist groups. Dan has written extensively in the IIF (International Islamist Front). I suggest you look into it, or read Gunaranta' Inside al Qaeda.

If you just want to target the traditional al Qaeda leadership, you are ignoring the strength of al Qaeda, which is the reliance of the regional groups in the IIF.

first of all Im not denying Tawhid is PART of AQ. Im with you and Dan on that. My distinction was NOT to do a leftie "Saddam had nothing to do with AQ, and Zarq doesnt count" It was more to keep perspective on how high up the folks weve got are. Tawhid is a subordinate part of AQ, albeit an important one. Lets say Zarq is a direct report to Zawahiri (corporate models are misleading i suspect, but lets go for it) even Zarqs direct reports are two removes away. Upper middle management, if you will. Again, comparison is useful. Ive been trying to follow Dan, and from what I gather KSA took out people at least as high in AQ-KSA as we have done in Iraq.

and im NOT suggesting we NOT target these people. Where in what I said did you get that? Again, all im suggesting is perspective. Sorry if you think im playing a word game. I think its more important than that.

Its certainly important that we target these people - it will help win the war in IRAQ, first and foremost. And it will help in the broader war. But thats a side benefit. If we DONT achieve a more or less stable, more or less democratic polity in Iraq, this is going to be a net loss, even if we kill 50 people who are two levels removed from Zawahrii. And to the extent that the appearance of these guys in Iraq harms that outcome, its a bad thing. Condi and others arent being stupid in pressing Syria to STOP the flow into Iraq. She and other recognize that we are FAR better off if these guys DONT come to Iraq. Which i guess i got the impression you were losing sight of.

And, thats the response youre going to get from people who are much less sympathetic to what we are doing in Iraq than I am. I just think this isnt where we should be focusing our arguments.

Testy, testy. I never said you didn't want to target the middlemen. I said your downplaying their importance displays a degree of ignorance of what is actually occuring in Iraq. A big difference. Now if you are backing off of this position, as it appears you are now doing, fine with me.

I have Inside al Qaeda with me, here is a pertinent quote for you:

"In keeping with the belief that the key to victory is the example set by the leadership, it laced the responsibility for the campaign on the leadership and the responsibility for the quality of leadership on the membership."

This is a paraphrase of Zawahiri's thoughts. The leadership he is referring to are the leaders at the operational and affiliate level. When men like Rashood, Darwish, Abu Talha and a host of others are taken down, the effectiveness of the leadership declines and al Qaeda is forced to promote those less worthy of the position. In a tiht knit group such as al Qaeda numbering int he thousands, these deaths and captures have a real impact greater than killing and colonel or general in our Army would have.

liberalhawk sez:

"I just think this isnt where we should be focusing our arguments."

I am not focusing the argument for Iraq exclusively on the flypaper theory. I think this is more of a side effect as opposed to part of the grand strategy, but a beneficial side effect in the sense it is drawing out terrorists that may have been inclined to lay low or whose governments may have been inclined to ignore. There is value in pointing this out. Which is what I am doing.

Again, taking the fight gave al Qaeda a choice: do nothing and demonstrate weakness, or fight. I agree that they are destablizing Iraq, but they are also doing a great job of turning a segment of the Muslim world against them. The Iraqi government is being forcesd to develop a legitimate counterteror and intel force. Pluses and minuses, but I see the balance sheet finishing in the positive if we stay the course.

As far as KSA's actions in the Kingdom, much of this was spurred on by Iraq, and al Qaeda's need to flex its muscles. KSA would likely have left these guys alone had their not been the regional conflict. Just as Afghanistan spurred Pakistan's actions... These events do not occur in a vacuum.

"Testy, testy. I never said you didn't want to target the middlemen"

I must have misread

"If you just want to target the traditional al Qaeda leadership, you are ignoring the strength of al Qaeda, which is the reliance of the regional groups in the IIF."

I think the problem gets to the use of the word "flypaper". as im sure you know, there are some folks in the blogosphere who said that the point of the war was to attract jihadis to Iraq where we could kill them, and that the insurgency was less bug than feature, so to speak.

Its THAT theory that has come under derision, and for the most part rightly so, i think.

But I see now that you were NOT supporting that theory, despite starting off by "it has come under derision, but...". Rather you see the killing of Tawhid leaders as an important side benefit, and wanted to point out some particularly prominent ones in the last few days. I agree with that.

liberalhawk,

Yes and no, I hope you can gather the meaning of my nuance ;)

I would say the point of the war was to (overgeneralized):

- Remove Saddam
- Push for change in the ME
- Challenge al Qaeda on its own turf
- pressure Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria by setting on their borders (an aside, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Syria is squirming, SA has begrudgingly made some progress, and add in Libya, an unintended consequence...)

In the third item, the flypaper efect can be anticpated, which makes it a side effect (perhaps there is a better word?) I am not going to go into detail here but hope you can understand where I am coming from, ask questons if needed. I said this above, but need to modify it;

"I think this is more of a side effect as opposed to part of the grand strategy..."

should read:

"By challenging al Qaeda on its own turf, if they choose to fight us in Iraq, then a side effect is that Iraq will be the destination of the enemy (the flypaper, if you will)."

Obviously this conflicts with the goal of establishing democracy, but there always was the chance al Qaeda would opt out. No perfect solutions here, in my opinion.

Agreed, the use of the term 'flypaper' definitely has negative connotations, but had I said 'magnet', 'bug zapper' or 'roach motel', I certainly doubt this would be received much differently by those who deride the term.

Now, personally I had hoped al Qaeda would not have accepted the challenge, taking the psychological/prestige defeat and creating rifts inteh organization that could have been exploited when the hardliners turned on the 'moderates' - those who implimented the policy to beg off Iraq. But they chose to fight, and I accept that killing them is a good thing.

"Now, personally I had hoped al Qaeda would not have accepted the challenge, taking the psychological/prestige defeat and creating rifts inteh organization that could have been exploited when the hardliners turned on the 'moderates' - those who implimented the policy to beg off Iraq. But they chose to fight, and I accept that killing them is a good thing. "

i certainly think killing them is a good thing. I see you agree that there is a conflict between "flypaper" and democratization, and that we would have been far better off had there been no insurgency, and had we instead had a clearer path to democratization. Even if that meant fewer dead jihadis in Iraq. I guess the word is not so much side effect, as offset, or silver lining.

I haven't seen it pointed out in the discussion so far but there are two distinct questions. First, is the “flypaper theory” what's happening? Second, is that a good thing? In at least partial support of liberalhawk's point above, using flypaper may reduce the number of flies in the room but it's hell on the flypaper.

liberalhawk,

I have no doubt you understand the value of taking out al Qaeda. Looks like we are on the same page here. Would you mind dropping me an email when you get a chance?

Dave,

I do believe we discussed this. It is occurring and is both god and bad. Good in that al Qaeda has committed and is taking serious casualties, bad in that it delays establishing a peaceful Iraq.

LH: Probably not generating more jihadis in Syria or KSA, just drawing them in and killing them. Put probably ARE generating Jihadis among IRAQIS (all those Fallujah Wahabis who were under Saddams thumb, or doing his smuggling for him) who we may end up killing in KSA, or wherever - which is the bigger factor - i doubt anybody really knows, CIA, or anyone else. Too soon, too foggy.

Agreeing with the last sentence, I almost reach the opposite view. Going into Iraq, I think it was clear that there would be a relatively small, tribal grouping that liked the status quo under Saddam and would easily resort to violence and crime. Whether this grouping called itself Baathist, Baathist-Socialists or Baathist-Socialist-Islamicists, seems to me to be a point of ideological convenience. I'm not denying the significance of al Qaeda, but it seems that this internal group would have existed with or without al Qaeda.

Who are these people coming across the border though?

The foreign fighters in Iraq are mostly Arab/Muslim nationalists. Mostly islamists but also some Christian and non-fundi Arabs.

Flypaper theory is just a bad excuse.
The main problem terrorists have is not middle managment, money or men but cause, training and weapons. Weapons are never a real problem but training is. Guess what Iraq is but a gigant school for terrorists and a cause to fight