A.L., first of all, let me say that it was a genuine pleasure meeting you last week. I'm sorry I couldn't stay longer...but next time, for sure.

second of all, let me say, that I think you are mischaratcerizing the Time's editorial when you say that "One of the main arguments supporting the claim that we should leave now is the obvious and real collapse of public support for the war..."

The Times is arguing against the continuation of the war on its own terms, not because of the shift in public opinion. These are the "main" reasons given by the NYT for withdrawal, not public opinion:

"The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles."

(As for the shift in opinion being the result of media spin rather than a sober conclusion drawn by honest, well-intentioned americans who have a decent grasp of the basic facts, I think that in making this claim you do a disservice to most people. I also think that you would have a difficult time gathering evidence for this claim.)

mark, that's actually fair; I didn't engage the Times piece on it's own terms but meant to do so as a part of a larger trend that I see which is really based on the 'collapse of faith' issue. I should have made that clearer.

I think there are genuine disagreements to have over the impact of the surge and state of the war; the problem of course is that the common perception is that the surge is a failure and the war a disaster.

The root of that common perception is worth pursuing as well...

...and I do also look forward to seeing you again in NYC and enjoying some good argument over equally good food and drink.

A.L.

It's Bush's fault. He didn't make the case for the war.

It's understandable that he didn't make that case beforehand. He thought it would be quick and easy and cheap, and the iraqis would welcome us and welcome Chalabi, and there was nothing to explain. Increased iraqi oil revenues (from expansions financed by western oil companies) would pay for everything needed including a full restoration of iraqi society. People who felt rich compared to Saddam under sanctions would feel no need to revolt.

The way I remember it, that changed soon after we took Baghdad. There was looting everywhere and we protected the oil ministry and we were franticly looking at the books, and then Bush announced it would be a long hard struggle.

And of course it took a long time to figure out that there really was a serious insurgency. For awhile there wasn't one. To some extent we created it by switching troops from full-combat to occupation. Usually you bring in fresh troops for the occupation. The guys who've just had the experience of surviving by hair-trigger reflexes aren't the best to keep civilians calm. You want fresh troops who don't really expect people to shoot at them. You might take a few more casualties when people do shoot at them, but they won't kill as many civilians and won't stir up so much trouble. But we didn't have the fresh troops ready because we didn't have a plan ready to occupy iraq. So we improvidised.

Still, at some point Bush should have figured out what was happening and leveled with us. It should probably have been sometime around September 2004.

Bush should have explained that we were facing a long-term struggle. It would take at least 10 years, and we'd need at least double the number of combat troops we had. If we couldn't get that many combat guys to volunteer we'd need a draft. We could expect it to cost at least $200 million a year for ten years. We might lose as many as 1000 dead soldiers a year and maybe 10,000 seriously wounded, many of them with brain damage.

And he should have explained very clearly why it was worth it, and why it was necessary.

If Bush had done that in September 2004 we wouldn't be facing these problems now.

Baloney. It is very wrong for the NYT or anyone else to simplify a lack of support for the war.

They think that the US public supports a quick withdrawal, even if genocide follows. This is not true.

The US public, in truth, wants to WIN THW WAR, and is frustrated that this has not happened yet. This is what the 'disapproval' is.

This is NOT the same thing as supporting a retreat. Even if anti-war leftists support this, most of the US public is smart enough to know that the cost of staying in Iraq, though high, is still less than the cost of leaving.

If we withdraw, and things become worse than the Cambodian killing fields and Rwandan genocide combined, it will cost the Democrats the WH for another generation.

Oops, I said the war, done right, would cost at least $200 million a year for ten years. Slip of the finger, I meant $200 billion a year for ten years.

It's easy to get things like that off by 100,000%. Like Senator Dirksen used to say, a billion here, a billion there, after awhile it starts to add up to real money.

I don't give a crap about what bin Laden says about our involvement in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

I didn't see a single sentence on Iraq in your previous post on a hypothetical Dem campaign speech.

I don't see any indication that you are willing to consider even the possibility that pulling out of Iraq is a better alternative than staying, as far as America's interests are concerned.

Nor that the situation there is as bad or worse than the (government influenced) media reports.

Nor that the "case" wasn't made because there is no case to be made for attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or the type of international jihadist terrorism you seem to fear. In fact, Iraq was a point of containment if anything.

Now look.

Pull out, stay, whatever, it was and will always and forever be easy to recognize that the outcome of this fiasco either way is on the Bush administrations head, and to a lesser but no less important degree on those like you who continue to hold America hostage to their warped and paranoid view of the world and callous disregard for the well-being of your fellow man.

Capitol C

" a country that had nothing to do with 9/11"

Are you still this ignorant?

1) Was 9/11 the only terrorist attack against the US ever? Don't you know about the 1993 WTC, the 1998 Embassy bombings, the 1983 Marine Barracks, the 1996 Khobar towers, and the 2000 USS Cole?

2) What about, post-9/11, the attacks in London, Bali, Beslan (Russia), Bombay, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, etc?

3) Why did Clinton attack Saddam twice, and in 1998, specifically for Saddam's WMD programs? 1998 was before 9/11, and before GWB, by the way.

Technically, Afghanistan also had 'nothing to do with 9/11', as the existence of OBL in Afghanistan does not justify an invasion of the full country that affects the civilians there. That is why you fools look stupid when you pretend to be hawkish on Afghanistan, yet anti-war on Iraq.

God, you people are so ignorant, that it is stunning.

AL

You are just plain wrong. Iraq is Lost because not only did Bush not make the strategic case, if he had one, he did not execute a post arm conflict w/ state forces plan that was flexible enough to keep an artifical nation state cohesive. As a consequence the actors of Iraq did just that they acted out for their pure self interest.

The result of that pure self interest is a non functioning state. A state that could not be put together again w/ the entire committment of the Marines and Us Army(because only boots on the ground control the ground).

As to helping the KURDS they remember Bush I.

It is going to ugly and bloody and not possibly worse for any strategic outlook and influence the US HAS/HAD when we pull out. You only have Bush to blame and for some reason you will not look at this fact and take responsibility upon yourself for your continued support. Even good ideas do not pan out.

GK, you have to admit the US public is slowly getting less ignorant. A couple of years ago a very large minority thought that iraq did have something to do with 9/11.

Technically, Afghanistan also had 'nothing to do with 9/11', as the existence of OBL in Afghanistan does not justify an invasion of the full country that affects the civilians there.

They weren't doing anything about OBL or al qaeda, though. Since OBL wasn't exactly denying 9/11 I think we might have done better to give them a few more months to work out the implications. Likely they'd have pushed al qaeda out and let us go after them wherever they set up next. Likely the next place would have given us better logistics.

But of course the public was demanding that we had to attack somebody right away. It's understandable the politicians went along.

We'd have done better to show more self-control, though it's completely understandable that we didn't. Give the muslims time to think it out. They in fact agree 99%+ that it's wrong to attack the innocent. They agree 99%+ that 9/11 attacked the innocent. If we'd given them time, they'd decide that OBL was no good. As it was, before they had time to get it settled we started doing airstrikes that killed lots of innocent people.

When it's your friend doing bad things and his enemy doing the same bad things, who do you side with?

"It's Bush's fault. He didn't make the case for the war."

I think this is largely true- Bush has spent too much time trying to sell the war to Congress directly, which never works. You can either strong arm these politicos or you cant, appeals to reason or patriotism simply arent going to cut it for long. Bush has needed to take the argument directly to the people, and that should be his number 1 priority. Not a 'listening tour', a leadership tour.

Its funny because the Times actually lays out a pretty good case for why it will be disasterous to pull out of Iraq- and then goes ahead and demands we do it anyway without so much as a shamed face.

But laying out that case is ultimately the presidents job. Its not that tough, the case practically makes itself. If we leave, Iraq will collapse into several armed camps heavilly funded by by their sponsor nations of choice and one of those camps will be run by Al Qaeda.
The amount of blood letting and ethnic cleansing that will occur in order to establish and purify these regions of autonomy will be staggering even by todays standards. The idea that we can wade in and out of that morass and pick off particularly dangerous actors is absolutely idiotic- we cant even do that now with our army on the ground and some reasonably friendly (or at least motivated) Iraqis will to work with us. There wont be any special forces raiding into Iraq after we run away, its just not politically or militarilly feasable. And we know well the limits of air power by now.

Thats the future if the Times and others get their way. Until they address in a realistic manner how they will mitigate these facts, or why they arent that bad, they are silly and unserious in this debate. But the President and his allies HAVE to present that picture to the American people. Talk radio and the blogosphere cant do it alone.

Bush should be out in every city and town in America explaining why this is the most important decision our country has made since the Cold War. This is a signal turning point in the power of the United States. If 3500 American deaths in 4 years can convince us to mutilate our regional respect and authority, as well as establish a haven for our enemies that have shown the ability to reach into our very heartland, we are in serious, deadly trouble as a nation and civilization. The funny thing about turning points is they dont often seem that serious until its far too late. This is a turning point. if we cant muster the will to see this through, we are done as a world power anyone particularly fears or respects. Thats whats at stake. Sadly the NYT and a whole lot of others are perfectly ok with that outcome. Be careful what you wish for.

Well, A.L.: since you seem so incensed over the New York Times' call for, as you put it: "surrender and genocide" - why don't you articulate (rather than just the usual overheated carping) an alternative policy?

In other words, please tell us just how many billions of American dollars, and (more importantly) how many thousands of American lives you are willing to see thrown down the rathole of Iraq? And for what aim?

To save face for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their delusionary neocon warmonger cabal?

To bring "freedom and democracy" to a people to whom these concepts are (at best!) alien nonsense? (to be exploited in pursuit of ancient power-struggles)

To "secure" the Middle East by the establishment of a permanent military presence whose very existence will almost inevitably guarantee insecurity?

It's all very well and good to sit behind one's keyboard and blog out carloads of chest-thumping rhetoric about "victory" - but in a conflict where that very term is fatally undefined (and, thanks to the policies of the Administration you still support, has been for many years) - ranting on with bellicose "win-win-win" cheerleading is eventually (if it hasn't already) going to wear a whole lot thin. C'mon, Marc: we deserve better!

"Well, A.L.: since you seem so incensed over the New York Times' call for, as you put it: "surrender and genocide" - why don't you articulate (rather than just the usual overheated carping) an alternative policy?"

I'll jump in and make the obvious argument- the status quo is a superior outcome. Even were it to remain as it is indefinately. Better for Iraqis, and better for America.

Do I expect the status quo to linger? No, i think Patreus is very likely to create an important impact in the next six months to a year. Remember how a lot of people pointed out (often in dismay) that it usually takes about a decade to put down an insurgency? Well we're about half way there already, and the later years grow progressively easier, historically speaking. The real question is are things likely to get worse? Not unless we leave- all the signs point positive now, at worst things will be as they are.

So the question is, considering what we've already invested in blood and treasure, is it wise to throw all that away knowing full well we will be paying that blood and treasure elsewhere as a result of our failure. Or do we see this through, believing in our generals and in our troops to rise the current wave of progress.

We are already fighting Iranian and Syrian proxies as well as AQ in Iraq. Is anyone naive enough to believe those actively enemy nations wont ride their bets and sting us elsewhere? The question isnt whether we bring our troops to safety, its whether we send them somewhere else where the bombers will follow. Even if that somewhere has a US zip code.

the status quo is a superior outcome.

You might suggest to your favorite presidential candidate to make that case for the US public.

Around half a billion dollars a day in borrowed money.

Averaging 4 soldiers killed and maybe 40 wounded, some with permanent brain damage.

The army tied down in iraq and not ready to respond to challenges elsewhere.

To continue indefinitely because the status quo is a superior outcome.

Definitely, your preferred candidate should make that case to the voters.

Do I expect the status quo to linger? No, i think Patreus is very likely to create an important impact in the next six months to a year.

He'd better. We're going to have a great big troop drawdown by April or so because we can't not do it. The army is getting worn out and we have to reduce the tempo. So if Petraeus doesn't get his results by then, he isn't going to.

Remember how a lot of people pointed out (often in dismay) that it usually takes about a decade to put down an insurgency? Well we're about half way there already, and the later years grow progressively easier, historically speaking.

We'd be halfway there if we'd started out with a decent strategy and applied it for 5 years. But we didn't.

The real question is are things likely to get worse? Not unless we leave- all the signs point positive now, at worst things will be as they are.

Did you hear that the iraqi government has demanded we give them a timetable for leaving? How do you think we should respond to that?

I think if we liquidate the iraqi government we'll get a worse result than we have now. Maybe we could just ignore them, you figure things won't get worse then? Or we give them a timetable, and we'll be facing all the problems we'll have after we withdraw.

Sure, GK, me and "my people" are ignorant. For example, I know it may shock someone "like you", but I don't believe in the tooth fairy or that the moon is made out of cheese either.

"You might suggest to your favorite presidential candidate to make that case for the US public."

Like I said- that is a worst case scenario, which i am at least willing to address. On the other hand, you and those who want to play the miracle card only consider the best possible scenario when you talk about consequences at all. Iraq might turn into Oz post wicked witch with happy little people dancy in the candy lined streets. But will you address the likely scenario, which happens to be damned close to the worst case scenario?

I'd be proud to see my candidate lay out exactly what is going to happen if we yank our troops out of Iraq precipitously, compared to what could happen at worst. The argument makes itself. Doing what you want is almost certain to produce an outcome unnacceptable to the security of our nation, but what I suggest at worst leaves us no worse off than we already are (but quite likely better off, and possibly victorious in our aims).

"Did you hear that the iraqi government has demanded we give them a timetable for leaving? How do you think we should respond to that?"

We should give them a timetable for leaving.

"I think if we liquidate the iraqi government we'll get a worse result than we have now. Maybe we could just ignore them, you figure things won't get worse then? Or we give them a timetable, and we'll be facing all the problems we'll have after we withdraw."

Who has ever suggested liquidating the Iraqi government except for you as a demagogue?

You are incorrectly comparing abruptly pulling our troops from with establishing a metrics based timetable for troops drawdown. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

My estimable co-traitors have already pointed out the obvious: public sentiment for the war collapsed as it became evident that we were meeting none of the nominal goals beyond the removal of Saddam. It hasn't even dawned on most of the country yet how mendacious was the run-up to this insane decision, which stands a good chance of going into history in the same chapter as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (an operation on much the same scale, you know), Operation Barbarossa, and Croesus' invasion of Greece.

As I pointed out many threads ago, look at what counts now as success. Alliance of convenience with Sunni tribal leaders who are basically Saddam's uncles and cousins, minus the appeal of secularism.

I read this weekend that our mega-embassy, the largest in the world, is bigger than the entire Vatican City. What do you suppose that was for? The benefit of Iraqis?!

The jihadis have already learned that when George Bush is president of the United States, great victories will be handed to them on platters. Whether we see fit to cut our losses or decide to create many more thousand furious anti-American fanatics is completely secondary to the damage inflicted upon us by millennialist neo-cons, authoritarian Banana Republicans, and their enablers in the media.

"Did you hear that the iraqi government has demanded we give them a timetable for leaving? How do you think we should respond to that?"

We should give them a timetable for leaving.

Umm, Mark: does this mean that you think we (the U.S.) should give the Iraqi government a timetable for US leaving, or a timetable for THEM leaving?

('cuz either option has supporters!)

Capotal C --

It is a matter of public record (9/11 Commission): Saddam gave Zawahari in a personal meeting 200K, two months before the Cole; and Saddam's ISI personally escorted a key 9/11 participant and plotter through Malaysian customs and attended the planning meeting.

So yes, Saddam as a matter of sworn testimony was involved deeply with Osama and 9/11.

You may find those facts inconvenient, but there they are.

As for Iraq, handing over that nation to Osama and Ahmadinejad would be my idea of a disaster. A secure operating base in the heart of the Muslim world, with all that oil revenue, and showing that:

It takes only about 3-4K US dead to make us surrender.
The US is a paper-tiger and a bad ally.
The US can be beaten by anyone willing to kill enough Americans (and not that many either).

Withdrawing from Iraq puts a giant "NUKE ME" sign on US cities.

At a time when Musharraf teeters on the brink of surrendering to the Red Mosque in Islamabad, and much of the NWF has been turned over to the Taliban, it is VITAL TO AMERICA'S CITIES not to show ANY WEAKNESS.

WEAKNESS GETS US CITIES NUKED.

It's as simple as that.

You may argue: "I don't want this fight. I didn't sign up for it. It's ugly and disgusting." Which are all true. But irrelevant. You may not be interested in AQ but AQ is interested in you. Iran is of course another menace, but it's likely we will have at least six months to a year before they have a good supply of nukes. Pakistan could any day fall under Osama and Mullah Omar's control.

I for one don't want to be provocatively weak to have LA or NYC or Chicago nuked. Don't think for one second this isn't what we're playing for.

Dems and Media idiots put moralizing and moral superiority over National Security, wishing and hoping to go back to 9/10, which likely they will get (since the media and political consensus in the beltway tilts that way). I DO think we will get a surrender/pullout in Iraq (and Afghanistan as Dems like Maxine Waters and the CBC are demanding).

Result? No one in Pakistan or Iran will feel any constraint (fear) and supply Osama with nukes to destroy major American cities. After all, if they can run us out of Iraq with 3-4K dead, why not make us surrender to Islam and Osama by killing 4-10 Million?

"While leaders from the Iraq's rival Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish camps disagree bitterly about many of the issues fuelling the conflict, most are clear on one thing: The Iraqi security forces are not ready to fight on alone."

Most begin their responses to the question of the troops' US presence with an obligatory nod to Iraqi national pride; no-one here wants the "occupier" to stay on forever. Nevertheless, it's far too soon for them to leave.

"Most of those in the Iraqi House of Representatives would like to see the presence of the US forces over for good," said Amira al-Baldawi, a Shiite member of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's ruling coalition.

"Everybody wishes them to leave, even the US forces themselves, but this initiative would be catastrophic if carried out before Iraq manages to set up its security forces," she told AFP

Iraqi leaders warn of catastrophe if US goes

Jim, I'm sick and tired of listening to your nuclear blackmail arguments. I am not wholly unconvinced you and other such militaristic paranoids would like nothing more than to see a nuke go off within the US just so you could say "Told you so". I also wouldn't be surprised if told that you were a clever Islamic terrorist sympathizer who considers his job in the "Great Global Struggle" to be goading the US into pointless and un-winnable military actions that serve the purposes of increasing anti-Americanism and US terrorism to a much greater (and measurable) extent than the opposite.

Capotal, the fact that I'm tired of worrying about the impact of AIDS in Africa doesn't make that impact any less real. Frustration and attempts to delegitimize those who see things differently than you hurt your credibility more than Jim's.

Want to try again? Jim is worried - and I'm concerned - that we'll face a nuclear weapon detonated by a deniable terrorist country in the US in the medium term. We think things are worth doing to prevent that.

I'm wide open to discussing what's worth doing and what is likely or not likely to work, or how real - or not - the concern may be.

A.L.

So yes, Saddam as a matter of sworn testimony was involved deeply with Osama and 9/11.

This is kind of a dead issue now, with Saddam and most of the AQ guys from that time dead, but still do you have any evidence for this?

Just because Bush et al came up with a bunch of lies about iraq, doesn't mean they were lying all the time. There might actually be some sort of credible evidence for this one. Somebody ought to look at it and see if it's believable.

It shouldn't hurt national security to reveal it now. Our enemies have surely found out about the technologies we were using 7 years ago, and again most of the participants we're talking about are already dead.

WEAKNESS GETS US CITIES NUKED.

Well there you have it folks. It's as simple as that.

Marc, its one thing to see the NYT editorialize on a subject where I think that they are clearly wrong. It is also a problem that this editorial seems founded on a amorality that is disturbing. But I think that another almost as frightening part of this op-ed is that the NYT would think that such a vacuous, risible and even incoherent editorial ought to be published on such an important topic.

Well, why not nuke a US city?

What percentage of Americans, let alone the rest of the world, think the US government was behind 9/11? And Bin Laden even took responsibility for that one.

If someone nukes Seattle tomorrow, and everyone claims, nope wasn't us...but you had it coming for policies x, y and z...

What are we going to retaliate with? Nuke them back? On the basis of some arcane, impossible to prove radiological samples? That a horde of conspiracy theorists will claim are 'faked'. Undoubtedly by those evil neo-cons of course...

Invade them, well, we've shown how we deal with that...run away...

Sorry, what's the downside that's deterring the benefits?

Heck, if I were a crazed jihadi, it's exactly what I'd do. Steal a couple paki nukes in the general confusion in Pakistan. Nuke one US city. Deny all responsibility. Blame the Jews/Zionists/Neo-cons. Blame US foreign policy. An expected weak US meddling in Pakistan to 'secure loose nukes' would only strengthen my hand. And probably result in more of the nukes falling into my hands. And if the US does hit back hard, well, more martyrs for the cause.

The US can either surrender or turn into an isolationist police state, either way, the US is out of the picture.

Not like getting a nuke into the US is hard. Insulate the inside of the shipping container in lead to mute the radiological signature and detonate it in the harbor, before it even hits customs. Way easier than smuggling drugs in.

Jim is worried - and I'm concerned - that we'll face a nuclear weapon detonated by a deniable terrorist country in the US in the medium term. We think things are worth doing to prevent that.

I don't see that Jim is worried. It looks like he considers this argument a trump card for staying in iraq. But to me it's the opposite. If we have a serious concern about getting nuked, let's put our resources into things that have might keep us from getting nuked. Sending our army out to play lethal tag with iraqi nationalists has nothing to do with that.

I'm wide open to discussing what's worth doing and what is likely or not likely to work, or how real - or not - the concern may be.

I wrote about that recently in the "OK, here's what Sorenson" thread. I think a central problem is that it makes a certain sense to lie to the world about our defenses against smuggled nukes. If we have an effective way to catch nukes in container ships, we should tell the world we don't so that people who want to smuggle a nuke will do it in a container ship instead of smuggling it inside a bale of marijuana. Similarly, if we are very good at catching people who try to smuggle russian nukes we should pretend we aren't so we can catch them trying.

It follows that if you know what's going on about this you're obligated not to talk about it. And if you can do an effective job of finding out, you shouldn't post it in public. So for example I know a way to smuggle a bomb into a US port that -- given everything I know about our defenses -- ought to work, and work quite cheaply. I hope that our defenses are better than they look. But it would be irresponsible to talk about the method in public.

We can in theory test 100% of container ships, and it needn't be all that expensive. If we're doing that, it makes sense to lie about it.

So how does this relate to iraq? The argument appears to be that once we assume we're doing an incompetent job of keeping nukes away from terrorists and keeping terrorist nukes out of the USA, then somehow we should keep terrorist nukes out of the USA by leaving our troops in iraq....

I get the impression there are several chains of reasoning left out of these arguments.

Capitol C

"Sure, GK, me and "my people" are ignorant. For example, I know it may shock someone "like you", but I don't believe in the tooth fairy or that the moon is made out of cheese either. "

I see you could not debate my points. This is a retreat (and a clumsy one at that) that ensures you lost this debate before it started. As Sun-Tzu says, the pinnacle of excellence is when your opponent retreats without even daring to fight.

This shows how anti-war people have no knowledge beyond bumper-sticker one-liners. No wonder your ideology is so intellectually empty.

Well, why not nuke a US city?

Sorry, what's the downside that's deterring the benefits?

What benefits?

We're a declining power. We get weaker each year. If the rest of the world can just wait, we'll do ourselves in and only mangle a few third world countries in the process, and they won't have to get too much involved. But if they attract our attention too much they could be the last country to get mangled by the USA.

What possible benefit do they get by nuking one (1) US city and stirring us up?

The US can either surrender or turn into an isolationist police state, either way, the US is out of the picture.

Surrender to who? The whole idea here is we don't know who did it. If somebody shows up and says "I did it, surrender or I'll do it again" I hate to think what we'd do. Not surrender, I'm sure about that much.

I'm having some trouble following your reasoning.

'What possible benefit do they get by nuking one (1) US city and stirring us up?'

We're the only remaining projective military power. The Europeans don't have a military and neither the Russians nor the Chinese can project enough to threaten.

If we get pushed out of the picture, nothing prevents any of these regimes from

1) Launching aggressive wars (start snapping up smaller neighbors).
2) Oil price games (triple the cost of oil to Western Europe for example?)
3) Exterminating unwelcome minorities (with the US out of the picture, is anybody even going to peep?)
4) Getting rid of Israel (Correct or not, the assumption is that only the US is propping up Israel, and that with the US out of the way, they can get on with 1967 properly this time).
5) Playing nuclear blackmail against Western Europe/neighbors.

The formalisms of the cold war kept a lid on a lot of nastiness, and the following Pax Americana did the same. Would be empire builders, especially those who dream of a Caliphate need us out of the way to proceed.

Without us in the way, Iran could easily pincer Iraq between themselves and their Syrian allies (lackies?) and then swing south taking the weak gulf states, just as one example. Who'd stop them?

I agree with you that it would be dumb to stir us up, but it's not our perception that matters, it's theirs. And one thing history is full of is people who completely misread American will and intentions. We tend to signal weakness and then jump to the other extreme when provoked. It confuses people. See WWI and WWII (especially the entire Imperial Japanese war plan) for the most recent examples.

nothing prevents any of these regimes from

1) Launching aggressive wars (start snapping up smaller neighbors).

We're busy with iraq and afghanistan. Now's the time if they want to.

2) Oil price games (triple the cost of oil to Western Europe for example?)

I'm getting over a sinus condition, maybe I'm a little slow today. I'm missing some links in the reasoning here.

Without us in the way, Iran could easily pincer Iraq between themselves and their Syrian allies (lackies?) and then swing south taking the weak gulf states, just as one example. Who'd stop them?

What stopped them when they won the iraq-iran war? They settled for restoring the old border that time.

They have a little trouble now with minorities who want things their own way. Do they want to expand that trouble forty-fold? Establish their domination over a whole lot of crazy sunnis? Maybe. I can't be sure what they want.

Do they want to control the oil? The oil that's going to be running out in 20 years or so? Looks like a bad bargain to me. Hard to be sure what they want, though.

Suppose that iran does conquer some other muslim nations. They'll run out of steam pretty fast -- they aren't real good at projecting power. They'd do better to look after their people. Get power sources so that in 20 years or so when their oil is gone they still have energy sources better than oxen. Do what they can to feed themselves and also make high-value exports that will pay for what they need to import -- with expensive energy there will be less trade across oceans, less long-distance trade overland. Hey, they have uranium! What's the very highest-value export? Reactor fuel....

If they have any sense they won't be wasting their resources invading their neighbors. But then, we can't really expect them to have more sense than we do.

So what will they do when we leave? I just don't know. We'll find out when it happens.

We'll start our drawdown this April if not sooner. Whether we're out before November depends a lot on how threatened GOP legislators feel.

I hope you're wrong about what happens. We'll probably find out well before 2010.

Just as a side issue, as its certainly not a primary concern, but imagine the political chaos after the detonation of a nuclear device in an American city and Rosie O'Donnell speculates on national television ( between segments of audience members guessing the retail price of a dishwasher ) that the Republican administration had arranged for the weapon's destruction of a city.

'We're busy with iraq and afghanistan. Now's the time if they want to.'

Not that busy, we may not have enough capacity to invade someone, not without shifting some forces around, but we do have enough to beat anyone's military from a defensive stance. And in particular we have enough air power to rip the guts out of an offensive attack. Syria could invade Lebanon and beat the Lebanese army with ease. On the other hand, add the US Air Force to the Lebanese army and Syria loses badly.

'2) Oil price games (triple the cost of oil to Western Europe for example?)

That will happen regardless.'

Only to a degree. There's always been a tacit understanding that if the oil producers push too far, to the point of causing economic collapse, we'd carve them up like turkeys. I remember during the OPEC fun in the 70's it was often tossed around that the Soviets and US ought to just draw a line down the middle of the ME and help ourselves.

Without us though, what exactly are the Europeans going to do if the OPEC cartel does decide to charge extortionately high prices?

As for 3 & 4, I agree with your theory that we'd get more aggressive, but then we both understand the US. For an outside observer, particularly one of a wishful thinking bent, the theory that it would make us extremely isolationist instead is very attractive, and not all that far fetched.

Diminishing or defeating us isn't the goal, the object is simply to make us surrender our world leadership duties, and turn us inwards instead. Turn the US into one big turtle that doesn't meddle anymore in world affairs.

5

Sorry, that wasn't clear. What I meant was that the US got nuked for meddling where 'we don't belong' and therefore the same blackmail threat is implied against everyone else. Meddle and you might go boom.

Against the neighbors obviously wouldn't be anonymous, but who's to say it had anything to do with what happened to the US? Iran forces Egypt into a subservient alliance treaty based on nuclear blackmail. They can credibly claim they had nothing to do with the US nuke. Heck, if they can claim that the US protective nuclear umbrellas has been withdrawn, everyone will claim they need nukes for defense...and pursue them.

You're not slow, I'm not communicating well. My original point was that, from the theoretical viewpoint of an aggressive tyrant or utopianist terrorist, if you think the US can be backed off by a little violence, wouldn't using a lot a violence, with appropriate plausible deniability, be very appealing?

That was the connection to the thread, if killing a few americans in Iraq gets us out of the middle east, than surely nuking a US city would keep us out forever?

Big potential gain, little risk (worst case scenario from their point of view? the US trashes say Pakistan, more martyrs for the cause).

'What stopped them when they won the iraq-iran war? They settled for restoring the old border that time.'

Both sides bled themselves dry and didn't go anywhere.

If we pull out of Iraq now, their won't be an Iraqi army to speak of, and Iran will already control large sections of the Shiite areas. Taking Iraq won't be hard, and I don't think the insurgency would stand up against sheer terror tactics, even assuming the Iranians actually faced one, which I doubt they would.

Conquest of Iraq would actually lessen internal dissent against the regime, and the usual excuses about wartime footing would dampen economic complaints. The Iranian military, bolstered with Syrian forces wouldn't have problems sweeping up Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the gulf states.

Iran now declares the Caliphate reestablished, with control over Mecca and a string of victories, I suspect they'll gain enormous popular support in remaining Muslim nations. A combination of diplomacy, threats, and popular uprisings would do to sweep Egypt and Jordan into line, likely as subservient 'allied nations'. Pakistan and North Africa would follow. Now we're looking at an Islamic Empire rivaling the borders of the historic empires, controlling an awful large chunk of the world's energy supply.

Not saying it would happen, it's just one possibility the US has been sitting on. And remember the original Iraq/Iran war was fought because both sides wanted to be the one to gain primacy over the Islamic world.

Wise or not, history's full of people launching grand schemes of conquest for various ends. Some worked out, most failed spectacularly (and bloodily).

I think we tend to forget how much crap the US negates simply by existing.

#22--Ok, so you're asking me to explain to everyone why I think Jim's "argument" that we either stay in Iraq OR ELSE a nuke will go off in a US city is ridiculous, illogical, paranoid, and counterproductive to national security?

Why do I get the impression that you see your role here as the head of a school full of special ed children?

Capotal - there are so many places I could go with that comment...

But let's take it straight. There are certainly some things not worth arguing about: gravity works except at relativistic or quantum scales; the Who were better than Led Zeppelin. But for many issues we talk about here, the trust is - wicked, as they say. And when that's the case, we argue - we talk - we have dialog between peers.

You're welcome to take your ball and go home; there's nothing mandatory about being here. But if you want to more than chestbeat and eventually become annoying and ignored, it'd be good if you brought some argument to the party.

So yeah, I am asking you that.

A.L.

we may not have enough capacity to invade someone, not without shifting some forces around, but we do have enough to beat anyone's military from a defensive stance. And in particular we have enough air power to rip the guts out of an offensive attack.

Traditionally, air power didn't stop offensives, it made them more expensive. In WWII china, our air support annoyed the japanese so they moved forward until we had to move our airbases back. Then when we kept annoying them they'd advance and make us move the airbases again. Without an adequate ground force we couldn't do much. We tried to interdict NVA supplies and failed -- we stopped lots of supplies but since they had the initiative they could wait until enough supplies did get through.

It may be different now. Even if it isn't, you have a point. Our airforce may not be enough to determine the issue by itself, but lots of times it would tip the balance.

'2) Oil price games (triple the cost of oil to Western Europe for example?)

Only to a degree. There's always been a tacit understanding that if the oil producers push too far, to the point of causing economic collapse, we'd carve them up like turkeys.

If they make an effective cartel and put prices ruinously high then we would presumably do something. What if there just isn't enough oil and we bid the prices ruinously high? Invading them won't drop the free-market price. It would just get oil wells blown up and temporarily reduce capacity. Demand is going up, supply is going down. It makes sound economic sense for the saudis, say, to keep their oil off the market now since it will be more valuable later. But if they tried that we'd do something drastic. So they pump oil as fast as they can, and they can't pump as much as they could a few years ago, and the quality is declining....

Diminishing or defeating us isn't the goal, the object is simply to make us surrender our world leadership duties, and turn us inwards instead.

We're heading for that regardless. Simple logistics. An up-armored HUMV gets somewhere between 2 mpg and 0.5 mpg. As oil goes over $100/bbl, how many of those are we going to field? An F22 carries maybe 2500 gallons of fuel, with an optional 2400 gallons extra in 4 external fuel tanks that eliminate the stealth. How fast does it use that fuel? Well the mean time between maintenance is 3 hours.... It's understandable it would guzzle fuel. It weighs half as much as a main battle tank and it flies at Mach 3. I'm wondering how many F22 missions we'll be able to afford 10 years from now.

Nobody but us is even considering taking on our "world leadership duties". It isn't affordable. When we "project power" we burn many many many barrels of oil. Nobody but us can afford it. We can't afford it either.

So we will quit whether anybody tries to make us quit or not. Unless we develop innovative low-power approaches to warfare.

Iran would be ruined by getting into a shooting war with us, simply because we could destroy their oil infastructure and wreck what little of their industrial and armanent infastructure there is. We'd smash their ballistic missile arsenal they spent so much on, and we'd have the perfect excuse to hit the nuclear sites we suspect.

Iran only wins this game by not starting a shooting war with us. Running us out of Iraq and letting them run half the middle east through their proxies until they can deploy their nuclear weapon trump card is their game.

You have no evidence that we can't monetarily afford the POL requirements of offensive / power projection operations. That's really a ridiculous "limitation" on our power projection capability.

Despite a refrain that we are "stretched", there are plenty of combat formations available for any military requirements. The US Army is only stretched in current circumstances because our nation's commitment level to the GWOT is a quasi-peacetime level. We are tiring out our military personnnel in that sense that they are at the edge of conducting the Iraq operation, the Kosovo operations, Afghanistan, our other deployments and maintaining a quasi-peacetime tempo.

In a full wartime commitment level of nation and military, we have plenty of capability available.

Mark, I agree. Iran has nothing to gain by a shooting war with us. Maybe they could make a war expensive for us. We could definitely make a war very very expensive for them.

I don't see that nukes would be a trump card for them, except that they're then hard to invade. We've been cautious about invading nuclear powers.

A.L.

You still haven't answered a question that was put forward, one that is quite reasonable. Would you be willing to come out and state how many more years, how many more lives, and how much more money you are willing to spend in Iraq? Are you willing to ask your Rep/Senator to do the same?

Until any politician does that - come out and say they are willing to put in 5 years, for another 600billion dollars, and 5000 deaths and 20000 seriously wounded - none can get my support. The best any have come - including the President - have been open ended "as long as it takes" and nonsensical WWII comparisons. As long as they refuse to confront reality, and bring it to the American people, I don't see how failure can be avoided. Every honest person knows this should be done - and the politicians know it would torpedo their campaign if they were to do so.

If you're curious about my answer - none. I don't believe that President Bush can lead us to success in Iraq(or even put us on a path to it), and I'm not willing to give him my support for another thousand US deaths, 5k wounded, and $150B to get us to someone who can.

J. Thomas (#3):

You're not going to get me to claim that Bush is eloquent, not in the slightest. But look at these quotes, all the same.

Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead...What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning.
...
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.

Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history.

Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting -- and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world.

Maybe--just maybe--you weren't listening as carefully as some of us were?

Robin Roberts (#33), if the government did nothing to her in that scenario, I seriously expect some freelancer might do so.

And Capitol C, if you do get around to responding as AL has asked, please note that Jim R.'s argument is not solely about Iraq but really addresses the more-general question of our assuming a posture of strength rather than weakness.

Capotal C -- I care not if you are sick and tired. Sensible people such as Sam Nunn and others have predicted in 2005 that within ten years a nuke would obliterate a Western City. Just as Pentagon planners predicted in 1989 that terrorists would use planes to strike buildings. It's so obvious that your failure to see this is indicative of a delusional world view in my opinion. Osama and Khameni have said over and over again they want to destroy America. BELIEVE THEM. Only an idiot would turn them into gentle kite-flyers. [Sam Nunn's Nuclear Threat Initiative is at www.nti.org ]

Pakistan teeters on the brink, with perhaps Musharraf having won this round (maybe) against the Red Mosque against jihad being proclaimed against him in the NWF and his plane nearly brought down by a missile. Iran is racing towards nukes. Lil Kim will sell to ANYONE. The world is DANGEROUS. You may rely on the goodwill of brutal killers. I prefer deterrence.

Iran has been waging war against us unchecked and unanswered since 1979: the Hostages, Beirut Barracks bombings, Khobar Towers, the other Saudi Bombing that killed 9 soldiers, the Buenos Aires bombings (recall the Monroe Doctrine?) plus of course the head of MNF-Iraq publicly stating that Iranians led (Qods Force) the raid that killed 9 soldiers and captured five. MNF-I spokesman said that Khameni had to know, since Qods reports directly to him (and laid out the satellite evidence including an exact duplicate in Karbala of the US compound). The head of NATO in Afghanistan said that Iranian forces are attacking NATO troops directly. The capture of British sailors is another act of war.

At every turn, Iran has made WAR on the US and the US has pretended it didn't happen, or run away.

WHY WOULDN'T IRAN think they could nuke us through Hezbollah and have us collapse. If we run away in Iraq after 3-4K casualties, why wouldn't we just collapse and surrender if we lose LA, Chicago, and NYC? WHAT YOU REWARD YOU GET MORE OF. Reward killing us out of Iraq and you'll encourage us to be killed at home to destroy us / make us submit.

WEAKNESS provokes aggression. We have been weak against Iran, since 1979, under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again.

If you want to pull out of Iran (and Afghanistan and the CBC and Maxine Waters demand) then the only way to avoid fatal weakness (think back to Spain and the Condor Legion) is to on the way out bomb the hell out of Iran's nuclear facilities and everything that feeds it, including all sorts of infrastructure. Along with a public threatening to nuke Pakistan out of existence if Islamists take over. And even then we might have to nuke someone or something to make our deterrence point. The Peace Movement has been disastrous because it encourages more terrorism by making us weak and helpless. The way the Peace Movements of the 20s and 30s encouraged Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler's aggressions.

Deterrence only works if people think you will use it. We have taught Iran under FIVE Presidents of BOTH PARTIES that we will NOT act against them. The Peace Movement like in the 1930's encourages dangerous aggressors (Iran, Osama, coup-minded Islamist Generals in Pakistan). That Ahmadnutjob and Rafsanjani (the "moderate") both pledge to wipe out Israel and destroy the US should concern all thinking Americans.

For the Poster who asked for the Saddam-Osama cites:

*Clinton's indictment in 1998 that Saddam and Osama were co-operating in WMD aimed at killing Americans. Clinton made much of it at the time. Perhaps he was lying, for the War-monger GWB, who was then Gov. of Texas. Or perhaps Clinton was reasonably accurate in his indictment (not that a toothless indictment is good for more than a laugh by the hard boys). But there you go.
*Saddam meeting Zawhari publicly in his Office and handing him a check for $200K months before the Cole. With pictures and everything.
*Sworn testimony in Front of the 9/11 Commission by the CIA that they'd followed a key 9/11 planner and participant to Kuala Lumpur, where he was escorted through Malaysian Customs by the head of Saddam's intelligence there, and who later drove him to and attended a planning meeting with the other conspirators. Shortly afterwards, the CIA lost track of the plotters, two of whom acted as pilots slamming into the WTC. Oh yes Saddam was just a gentle kite flyer.

Of course, the Iranians were also involved, they did not stamp the muscle hijackers passports as they transited Iran, per order of Qods Force head who REPORTS DIRECTLY TO KHAMENI. This also according to sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Perhaps they were also flying kites at the time.

It is clear to any reasonable person that both Saddam and Khameni knew of the general plot outlines (kill Americans) and helped Osama with his goal. Perhaps it's very wise to turn over Iraq to Osama and Iran so they can repeat the process, I would not think so. But perhaps moral purity and posturing, status is more important to you than the security of the nation. It seems that way with most Liberals, who care more about what terrorists think of us and harsh words at Davos from kleptocratic dictators than security for us ordinary working people.

It is ten times of stupid, laced with idiotic, with a side order of moron, to simply pull out of Iraq and not do anything to convince Iran and Pakistan that not just "deniable" nukes going off in several cities but even the thought of it would lead to hair-trigger destruction, by actions so obvious they cannot be denied by their hard boys who want war and conquest and action. Which boiled down to it's essentials means killing millions of people. One way or another.

I would rather spend US lives and money and time to avoid that. Even if it meant staying in Iraq for a century at these casualty levels. But however, Liberals and the Media will likely have their way. So we will be weak and lose any deterrence. Get several cities nuked. Lose millions. Tens of millions even. And have to kill half a billion to save the rest of our cities.

The tragedy is that but for the constant need of Liberals to show their upscale social status and moral preening this train wreck (not the least of which is the loss of several US cities) could have been avoided. But hey, Father Coughlin, Lindbergh, and Pete Seeger (Stay out of Mr. Roosevelt's War for the Jews!) all opposed any involvement. Seeger even wrote songs and sold an album about it. [Though he changed his mind when his patron Joe Stalin got double-crossed by ally Hitler]

Capotal C (Would you explain the reference of your handle? Or is it merely a spelling error? I really am interested.)

And after wading thru all of your 'arguments' - what Armed and Jim R. say - in spades. Make the argument or don't, they make sense. For Heaven's sake, Man, read the words of bin Laden yourself. He has said in so many words that he feels it is okay to kill 10 million, yes, MILLION, Americans, up to 4 million of them children. That is what his moon god tells hi is okay to do, according to him. Him, not me. And how do you suppose that he will propose to kill, en mass, that many without nukes?

Go here - Islamist Watch

Get busy, you have homework to do.

I am punchy after being in airplanes for hours and hours. Time to find some food and go sleep, for tomorrow takes me to the hinterlands of Japan.

Oh, and lastly, bin Laden has predicted that by killing enough of us Americans that we will do exactly as he says we will - cut and run. And we are preparing to do just that. Western Civ. may be dying as someone said above - that may be true - but I plan on going down clawing and fighting. And I dare anyone to play DD214 p*ker with me, so don't you dare drag out the chickenhawk argument on me, I am a grumpy old fart who still can hold my own.

The Hobo

AL? p*ker - the card game is on the blacklist?

Huh? Why? Just curious.

"I don't see that nukes would be a trump card for them, except that they're then hard to invade. We've been cautious about invading nuclear powers."

Actually two nuclear powers have never engaged in a shooting war- for pretty obvious reasons. Thats why nukes are a trump card. Once you have them, you are in the big boys club. Forget invasion, the risk of escalation alone makes even playing air force chicken a deadly dangerous game.

The games theory is well established- the only stable war between 2 nuclear powers is a total stalemate, and nobody goes to war hoping for a stalemate. Once one side starts losing their incentive to use their nuclear arsenal while they still can becomes paramount.

The 2nd most critical reason Iran cant be allowed to have nukes is that it instantly means a conventional war against them is out of the question. Think about how brazenly Iran arms and forments terrorism worldwide now. Imagine when they dont have any fear of reprisal.

(The 1st most critical reason is that once Iran has a nuclear arsenal, it becomes a primary American and Western interest to keep its regime stable and in power, no matter how hideous. The risk of an ousted Mullah running for his life with access to nuclear weapons and terrorist phone numbers on speed dial is one of the scariest things i can think of, and perhaps the most likely scenario of nuclear weapons being used next in world history.)

Dave, I think we keep spending there until a better plan comes along.

One thing that is supposed to be done in the environmental impact report is to research the "no project" alternative at the same level of scrutiny as the proposed project.

In this case we're in a bad situation - but until an alternate plan can be shown to get us into a better one, I'd say we stay.

As I wrote a long time ago, the other side gets tired, too. and sometimes you just have to persist to win.

A.L.

"As I wrote a long time ago, the other side gets tired, too. and sometimes you just have to persist to win."

I think this is a very important point- and i would just amend by saying you always have to persist to win. Its an old truism of war that both sides often think they are losing, and the one that believes it more ends up being right.

It should occur to us that Bush's poll numbers are lower than any president since Harry Truman. In the midst of the Korean War.

"The Chicago Tribune called for immediate impeachment proceedings against Truman: President Truman must be impeached and convicted. His hasty and vindictive removal of Gen. MacArthur is the culmination of series of acts which have shown that he is unfit, morally and mentally, for his high office...The American nation has never been in greater danger. It is led by a fool who is surrounded by knaves...⁹⁰

Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war gone sour and blaming his generals instead."
...
"In February 1952, Truman's approval mark stood at 22% according to Gallup polls, the all-time lowest approval mark for an active American President."

wiki

Any of that sound familiar? Should we have abandoned South Korea to the tender ministrations of the North? How would Asia, and SK in particular look today if Truman had listened to the polls and abandoned South Korea?

And that war left 50,000 Americans dead.

Just maybe Iraq isnt such an unprecidented disaster, and just maybe a lot of us are being immensely short sighted.

May 2003!: The Bush administration is planning to withdraw most United States combat forces from Iraq over the next several months and wants to shrink the American military presence to less than two divisions by the fall, senior allied officials said today.

November 2003:General Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon would be announcing "a very specific laydown" on Thursday. Pace also told the House of Representatives Armed Services committee that the Pentagon plans to reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq to about 100,000 by May 2003 as new units are rotated in.

April 2005: Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the American-led military campaign in Iraq is making enough progress in fighting insurgents and training Iraqi security forces to allow the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year, senior commanders and Pentagon officials say.

June 2006: The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

More later.

*Clinton's indictment in 1998 that Saddam and Osama were co-operating in WMD aimed at killing Americans. Clinton made much of it at the time."

I hate to trouble you, but since you have all this handy could you perhaps provide links? I tried to google this one and didn't find it. What I did find were two references to it by obviously-unreliable redstate bloggers.

*Saddam meeting Zawhari publicly in his Office and handing him a check for $200K months before the Cole. With pictures and everything.

When I looked for this I got this link
$200,000

Maybe a better link is available.

*Sworn testimony in Front of the 9/11 Commission by the CIA that they'd followed a key 9/11 planner and participant to Kuala Lumpur, where he was escorted through Malaysian Customs by the head of Saddam's intelligence there, and who later drove him to and attended a planning meeting with the other conspirators. Shortly afterwards, the CIA lost track of the plotters, two of whom acted as pilots slamming into the WTC. Oh yes Saddam was just a gentle kite flyer.

Lots of lies in sworn testimony to congress have no consequences whatsoever, unfortunately. I think I could find this one in the 9/11 report, but if you have convenient links that would be very nice. I remember seeing claims this had been debunked but I don't know whether to believe them.

Of course, the Iranians were also involved

Oh yes, of course.

"#43: Let's not talk about the general War on Terror. Let's talk about the War in Iraq and Americans being tired of that."

Andrew, dont you have to seperate that from what we should be doing going forward? Undeniably we are engaged against Al Qaeda in Iraq now, regardless of what happened in the past. It is extremely likely that yanking our troops out of Iraq at this point will give AQ a powerful sanctuary and platform in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq going forward.

So lets talk about the War on Terror. Does it really make sense to throw our security under the bus and hand our enemies a major victory because you are pissed at the president? Rightly or wrongly?

Why cant we have thing conversation without instantly veering back in time (and this applies to both sides of the argument)?

Mark B., But many of us are arguing and have been arguing for some time that our presence in Iraq--which was unnecessary to begin with, and a mistake to being with--is continually strengthening AQ and, to use your term, handing our enemies a major victory. AQ in Iraq is growing BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Without US presence there, AQ in Iraq would never have formed, would have no foundation, no cause, no recruits, no enemey.

AQ, like the wider Jihadist movement, is just that: a movement. It grows through recruitment. Terrorism is clearly spreading, not only in Iraq, but around the world. The chief fuel for this fire has been US involvement in Iraq. The longer we stay, the stronger AQ will grow.

The argument that we need to stay in Iraq to demonstrate that we have the will to stay in Iraq is circular, self-supporting and without foundation UNLESS we have some necessary business in being there in the first place, especially given that our being there is the principle draw toward jihad for those who choose to join.

Unjustifiable military action by the US in a middle eastern country is going to have consequences. One of those consequences is going to be an increase in recruitment for movements, such as AQ, and a growth in terrorism and support for terrorist organizations. This why it matters so much how the US became invovled in the first place. It matters to those millions of people who are potential recruits for jihadist movements.

"is continually strengthening AQ and, to use your term, handing our enemies a major victory."

You may be arguing that, but you arent presenting much evidence. Right now Sunnis have largely turned against AQ and are actively hunting them in Anbar and elsewhere. AQ attrocities have demonstrated to the Muslim world and ME in particular what they are all about:

"Last year's poll also directly shows little support for Al-Qaida's global goals. When asked what aspects of Al-Qaida they sympathized with most, if any, only 6 percent of Arabs polled identified its advocacy of a puritanical Islamic state, while 7 percent identified its methods. (A plurality identified Al-Qaida's fight with the United States as the strongest aspect.) This trend was confirmed in a recent Pew Global Attitudes Project poll, which showed that confidence in bin Laden has eroded in several Muslim countries in recent years -- in some cases dramatically"
source

"AQ in Iraq is growing BECAUSE we are in Iraq. Without US presence there, AQ in Iraq would never have formed, would have no foundation, no cause, no recruits, no enemey."

That may be true of Iraqi indigenous AQ, but it is the foriegn components that is the great enemy and has been committing the atrocities. These are the only major actors trying to forment chaos and civil war for its own sake. Were these just quiet farmers from Egypt and Syria? Or were they jihadis looking for a fight? How do you know they wouldnt be in Afghanistan right now (or wont go there in the future if we leave), or Kuwait, or Lebanon?

"AQ, like the wider Jihadist movement, is just that: a movement. It grows through recruitment."

So our abandoning of Iraq to AQ will damper their recruitment or increase it?

"Terrorism is clearly spreading, not only in Iraq, but around the world. The chief fuel for this fire has been US involvement in Iraq. The longer we stay, the stronger AQ will grow."

Thats your assessment. But Islamic terrorism has been growing leaps and bounds before we ever went to Iraq. Now we have a chance to prove that it 'doesnt pay' so to speak, but what you are suggesting strongly says that it DOES indeed work. So we move our troops to Kuwait or Qatar? You think maybe the jihadis will follow with their battle proven strategy?

"The argument that we need to stay in Iraq to demonstrate that we have the will to stay in Iraq is circular, self-supporting and without foundation UNLESS we have some necessary business in being there in the first place,"

Our necessary business is keeping AQ from ruling a good chunk of territory in the heart of the ME. Our business is proving to our friends that we keep our committments and our enemies that we dont make idle threats. Are these goals not worthwhile? How does a shattered Iraq with potentially Cambodian levels of genocide and ethnic cleansing and a large faction of it run by AQ not fly in the face of our self interest (not to mention Iraqis)?

"Unjustifiable military action by the US in a middle eastern country is going to have consequences."

That ship has sailed. Assumedly we have been and will continue to pay the price. My problem is that you are suggesting leaving the merchandise even though payment is nonnegotiable. Whats the sense in that? Too many arguments are STILL based in what we should have done. That is as illogical as it is dangerous.

" This why it matters so much how the US became invovled in the first place. It matters to those millions of people who are potential recruits for jihadist movements."

Again, barring a time machine there is nothing we can do about that. How does the US looking weak and running away deter AQ recruitment? Its a ludicrious idea. What about OBLs famous strong horse/weak horse theory? You guys are somehow suggesting unscrambling an egg. You know (even admit) full well that we cant, but you seem to think self flagellation will somehow improve our situation (or at least let you say I told you So).

Simple question to address your point- will our abandonment of Iraq help or hurt AQ?

Mark B., Simple answer: my belief is that US withdrawal of military forces from Iraq will weaken AQ. Foreign figthers and indigenious fighters will most likely not join up to fight vs. Iraqi gov't or forces in same numbers as join up or fight vs. US forces.

I'm not looking for self-flaggelation or political embarrassment. I'm not seeking to go back in time or trying to unscramble an egg. I'm pointing out one of the reasons I believe people join the fight on the other side. We need to have an independent, credible reason to be in Iraq other than that leaving Iraq will be perceived as a sign of weakness. I don't think AQ is capable of ruling large chunks of territory in Iraq. I think that scenario is largely an invention of this adminstration in order to justify their continuation of a policy that was and continues to be a bad idea.

As far as bin Laden is concerned, I would make argue that much of his public pronouncements should be treated as propoganda and not as accurate reflections of his thinking.

You are correct that it is my assessment that Iraq has spurned world-wide terrorism. I understand that it has been growing over some time. However, my assessment is that are actions are fueling it, not slowing it down. Here is an excerpt from the column to which you provide a link:

"Americans should also be troubled that most Arabs surveyed now see the United States as one of the greatest threats to them (second only to Israel), in large part because of the Iraq war and the deep mistrust of U.S. intentions there, according to my poll with Zogby."

One of the reasons that the initial justifcations for the war continue to matter is that if we had a good reason for being there, I wouldn't argue for withdrawal. But the only argument for staying seems to be that, once there, we must stay, else our enemies win. We are, in effect, staying against our will because our enemies don't want us to stay. Our fear of their perceptions is controlling our actions.

Basically, in Iraq, I think we are fighting an enemy that is created by our presence in Iraq.

Stay the course ???
When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down ??
Operation Together Forward ???
The surge is working !! ??

Look what we really need now is a NEW SLOGAN
the old ones don't work anymore.

"I'm pointing out one of the reasons I believe people join the fight on the other side. We need to have an independent, credible reason to be in Iraq other than that leaving Iraq will be perceived as a sign of weakness."

Specifically? UN resolutions? Iraqi government begging us to stay? Killing AQ fighters? Keeping Iraq from spiraling into a genocidal civil war? Protecting the worlds energy supplies? Minimizing the influence of Iran? How much much credibility are you looking for? I dont see many people publically doubting what a disaster leaving would be (even the NYT acknowledges that much)

"I don't think AQ is capable of ruling large chunks of territory in Iraq. I think that scenario is largely an invention of this adminstration in order to justify their continuation of a policy that was and continues to be a bad idea."

Yet they have ruled large chunks, city sized at least. There is another factor here- who do Sunni Al Qaeda hate almost as much as America? The Shiia. You think fellow Sunni terrorists arent going to stay and fight to keep the Shiia from overwhelming the Sunni Iraqis? You dont think the Sunni will accept the help when the alternative is being on the other end of what they put the Shiia through? Are you taking any of this into your calculations? The funny thing is the only actor trusted (to an extent) by both sides to be a fair arbiter is the Americans. The idea that we're the catalyst and not the lid on this pot at this point is just farcicle, and seems to me nothing but wishful thinking built to justify doing what you want to do.

"One of the reasons that the initial justifcations for the war continue to matter is that if we had a good reason for being there, I wouldn't argue for withdrawal."

Do you really need more reasons? Lets keep it simple, is preventing Iraq from becoming a Rwandan style bloodletting a good enough reason? One of the arguments for why we were fools to get involved was the Saddam was the only thing keeping the Sunni-Shiia plot from boiling over in Iraq. Does that not hold true?

"Basically, in Iraq, I think we are fighting an enemy that is created by our presence in Iraq."

And I think there is far too much evidence to the contrary. This is maybe the crux of disagreement- do Jihadists and AQ in particular simply have specific, even addressable grievances against the US and the West. Or should we take WHAT THEY SAY seriously and consider that their goal is to establish a Caliphate, destroy infadels and apostates, and rule Islamdom via Sharia law?

You claim our presence is firing all this, but its just not so. It ignores the very trends you urge us to consider. Iraq is a stepping stone for the Jihadist movement. I defy anyone to offer evidence to the contrary. These guys chopping off childrens heads and blowing up crowded mosques are not going to go back to camel herding if the US leaves Iraq.

Isnt this an argument based wholy on appeasement? Arent you exactly suggesting we appease the jihadis by evacuating Iraq?

"Mark B., Simple answer: my belief is that US withdrawal of military forces from Iraq will weaken AQ."

And not to overcomplicate things, but i think you're going to have trouble finding support for that point of view. Either in the 'experts', the commentariat, much less the public. It flies too much in the face of common sense.

Doesnt Napeleon's maxim hold true, "It is an approved maxim in war, never to do what the enemy wishes you to do, for this reason alone, that he desires it."?

Mark B., No I don't think you can successfully twist my argument for US withdrawal from Iraq into an appeasement policy. (After all, if dozens of people who were clever enough to get themselves elected to public office have failed at that game, it seems unlikely that you will succeed.)

You might have a case for the withdrawal = appeasement argument if you weren't willing to admit that the initial invasion was a mistake. I'm not arguing that we withdraw from Iraq because the jihadist want us to. I am arguing that we withdraw from Iraq because we never should have invaded in the first place; that the current conditions are the direct result and consequence of our invasion and of our continued presence; that our continued presence has the effect of increasing terrorism worldwide, not of diminishing it.

"UN resolutions? Iraqi government begging us to stay? Killing AQ fighters? Keeping Iraq from spiraling into a genocidal civil war? Protecting the worlds energy supplies? Minimizing the influence of Iran? "

We asked for the current applicable resolutions to be passed. I'm reasonably sure that if we were to seek withdrawal we could get the security council to pass a resolution okaying it.

The Iraq gov't is begging us to stay because it is in their interest for us to stay. Our presence allows the Shia gov't to increase its power and gain advantage for the civil war that will follow once we do leave, whenever that occurs in five years, tomorrow, ten years, next year.

Killing AQ fighters. If there were a finite # of AQ fighters and we killed more than are created, that might be a reasonable argument. However, my argument says that AQ fighters come from a pool of potential recruits and that pool is enlarged as a result of our presence.

Keeping Iraq from spiraling into a genocidal civil war. What is it now? Why do you assume it will get worse? Perhaps the sooner the inevitable occurs, the better. Since no measures are being taken to prevent genocidal civil war in the future, or any progress is being made toward this goal, this particular reason dooms us to staying there forever out of fear that things will get worse; that our policies have painted us into a corner that will never dry.

Protecting the worlds energy supply. Is that it? Is this why we are in Iraq? Oil? I think this is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.

Minimizing Iranian influence. Are you kidding? We're doing the opposite. We're propping up a pro-Iranian gov't. We've created the chaotic conditions Iran can exploit. We've demonstrated our inability to quell Iraq and shown how extended our forces are. We've basically given Iran free reign over the next 10 years...and you want us to stay in Iraq to minimize their influence. That's like a sick, cruel joke. The Iraq war has been a boon to Iran.

No good can come of a war policy that is based upon a series of mistakes and miscalculations. We are just playing into the jihadists hands.

mark:

It seems your argument is directly applicable to Afghanistan as well. Doesn't the US presence there also generate recruits for Al Qaeda (as it surely did when the Soviets were there)? Do you also argue for a US withdrawl from Afghanistan? Why or why not?

Mark B., I'm not sure Napoleon is the best person from whom to draw foriegn policy advice. As I recall, he badly overextended his policy beyond what his resources were capable of maintaining, and did so in pursuit of unreasonable and unnessecary foreign domination. As I further recall, he wasn't all that successful. He won many battles on the field, but he did not manage an empire very well. I'm sure Hitler had his share of maxims, too.

SG, I don't feel that my argument is directly applicable to Afghanistan. I think that our original justification for invading Afghanistan was much sounder than the one for invading Iraq. Certainly, it had a great deal more international support and I think you could argue that such support was an indicator of how most of the world felt about it, i.e., that it was justified.

As a result, I think that attraction it offered to potential jihadist recruits is much much weaker than that offered by the Iraq invasion.

If, as the link that Mark B. provided suggests is true, that there is a large, growing number of Arabs who view the US as a threat because of Iraq, then we can expect that some of those Arabs will join in the fight against that threat, just as many US young men and women join up to fight against perceived threats. I don't think that we enlarged the pool of enemies by going into Afghanistan to the same extent that we have by going into Iraq.

mark:

I don't believe your argument holds. I don't see how Europeans attitudes toward the respective conflicts have any bearing on how the average Achmed thinks or acts. There's an existence proof (the Soviets and the Mujahadeen), that an occupation of Afghanistan will generate Arab recruits to go fight. We know this to be true. Furthermore, if your proposal is followed, that historical fact will be compounded by the fact that Al Qaeda could point to Iraq as proof that they can defeat the US. It seems like you are putting forth the best case recruiting scenario Al Qaeda could dream of: An active conflict to go fight on the heels of a victory.

As I understand it, the difference you draw seems to be that you supported invading Afghanistan but not Iraq. I can understand how, being opposed to the invasion in the first place, you don't support the continuation of the operation and, with the luxury of hindsight, I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. But even if the invasion was a mistake, that doesn't mean that leaving Iraq resolves it. It seems like it just compounds the error. Your proposal strikes me as possibly the worst case scenario imaginable.

Unless your proposal is to leave Iraq the way the Romans left Carthage. That I might be able to get behind...

You guys are arguing at cross purposes.

For the moment, I want to restrict it to iraq like Mark. Mark is correct that most of the insurgents are iraqis, and most of them attack us because we're there. If we weren't there they might reach a settlement with each other and the other iraqis, or they might not. Most people do, eventually. Usually sooner than later. Xugoslavia it seems like they never did except under Tito. I don't know how to predict how long it will take iraqis to work things out and I think neither does anybody else.

Sunnis have the problem that white south africans did and lebanese christians did and israelis do -- they spent some time oppressing a majority that might oppress them if there was a representative government. It's worked out fairly well in south africa and lebanon, it tends to work out, but it takes a leap of faith. Easier to try to hold onto power and hope for the best. It really matters whether the shia:sunni ration is 3:1 or less than 2:1. The more important sunnis would be in a peace, the more likely they'll accept it. Similarly, Sadr and Sistani both talk about reconciliation and peace, but what would they really do if they had the chance? No way to tell until it happens.

So it just isn't clear how well iraqis would work out their differences if we weren't there to keep them from working out their differences. No way to find out except try it and see.

Separate from that there's AQI. Al qaeda tends to get along with salafis. Here's a sort of analogy -- Fundamentalist christians in the USA who want to make everybody else live like fundamentalist christians are like salafis. And abortion bombers are like al qaeda. Abortion bombers get some support from fundamentalist christians when they wouldn't get much help from anybody else. Persuade the fundamentalists they have a fair chance to enforce their will with democracy, and they'll stop supporting terrorists. But maybe they have to believe they can win -- if they think the majority is firmly against them they might want to keep fighting.

So anyway, al qaeda tends to act kind of like foreign fundamentalist christians -- they offend people right and left and wear out their welcome even with people who tend to agree with them. For awhile sunnis tended to shield them because we were attacking sunnis and they thought they needed all the help they could get. If sunnis don't need al qaeda are they going to put up with it? We're finding that out now. Sunnis are at least pretending to roll up AQI groups when we give sunnis weapons etc and stop attacking them. This evidence provided by Mark B supports Mark's claim.

There's a reasonably strong chance we can win against al qaeda in iraq whether we stay or leave. They're starting to look even worse than us -- to their friends.

So it looks plausible to me that we don't need to stay in iraq to beat AQI. They're losing worse than we are. There could be other reasons why we should stay, but that isn't one of them.

So we have two separate issues. One is whether we should keep our forces in iraq for the indefinite future, until things get measurably better in ways we have absolutely no reason to expect any time soon. And reasons for this should not this year involve al qaeda. It's predictable that al qaeda in iraq will continue to get weaker whatever we do. If, say, 5 or 10 years from now AQI revives then we might think about it as a reason to continue the occupation. Not now.

The other issue is what to do about international terrorism directed at us. It's possible somebody might make a reasonable argument that we should stay in iraq because of iraq's effect on international terrorism, apart from AQI. The arguments I've heard about that are mostly based on intangibles. Like "Oh, what would the terrorists think of us if we chickened out in iraq?! They'd be so emboldened they'd do terrible things that they're too afraid to do now!" But this is idiotic. We're talking about people who plan to die making attacks on us. They aren't afraid of us because we're in iraq.

Most of the international terrorists are suffering from an absolute sense of right and wrong. They think we're wrong so it's right for them to kill us or die trying. If we win in iraq that will enrage them. If we get driven back it will reduce their sense of urgency. That doesn't say we should avoid a win if we can get one, but it refutes the argument that any retreat will have horrendous consequences because of what it makes terrorists think.

Probably the best thing we could do about terrorists is to infect them with moral relativism. Second best would be to persuade them that OBL etc are also wrong. If we could be at least morally ambiguous, that would help a lot. Almost all of arab society is against OBL just now, except in places where they have big grievances and AQ is the closest they have to a capable alternative. AQ attacks the innocent. That's wrong. Their only excuse is that we attack the innocent too.

This is a war that takes place largely inside arab and muslim heads. If they all decide to join AQ then we get far far bigger problems. If they give AQ 0.01% suppport instead of 0.1% support then we've 90% won compared to where we are now. So -- in iraq and everywhere else -- the most important thing we could do is to stop giving the world the impression that we attack the innocent. Give up air strikes except in very specific circumstances. Call for surrender, in each case where we find bad guys negotiate to let the innocent leave, offer clear surrender terms with fair trials.

The sagacious SG said "...with the luxury of hindsight, I would agree that the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. But even if the invasion was a mistake, that doesn't mean that leaving Iraq resolves it. It seems like it just compounds the error. Your proposal strikes me as possibly the worst case scenario imaginable."

Many of us don't need to have our vision corrected by hindsight, SG; we knew from the outset, and beforehand, that it was by far the most likely outcome (false premises+incompetent corrupt leadership+volatile region = recipe for disaster).

I'm glad that some of you have come around, but pardon me if I'm somewhat skeptical of your ability to see the reality of the current situation or make predictions about its outcome. So, you can argue all you like, but your track record on this and other situations relating to global stability or terrorism is already so abysmal as to make your current diagnoses laughable.

So you think leaving Iraq will be worse than staying? That's gotta be the best predictor that I can think of that it won't turn out that way.

"For awhile sunnis tended to shield them because we were attacking sunnis and they thought they needed all the help they could get. If sunnis don't need al qaeda are they going to put up with it? We're finding that out now."

Again, you are pretending that Iraqis are going to magically come to a peaceful solution if we leave- when they cant come to one now. It just doesnt pass the laugh test.

One thing is certain- Sunnis trust Shiia less than they trust Americans and vice-versa. For me there is a damned high level of skepticism to overcome if you want to convince me that even though American troops are the only thing preventing a full scale civil war between Sunnis and Shiia, mysteriously this wont be the case if we're not there. As far as im concerned this is about like the claim that innoculations cause disease. And unless that argument is addressed in a way more thorough than 'well we just dont know for sure' i cant take it seriously and the rest of the house of cards you guys are building on collapses.

Starting with the AQ argument. If its a question of Sunnis being run over by a Shiia juggernaught, or tolerating AQ running things, well guess what? They will pick AQ.

So if the Iraqis don't magically come to terms without us there (and with Sadr, Iran, AQ, and god knows who else redoubling their efforts to wrest control without Americans to worry about), and if the Sunnis decide its better to be slaves to the Sadr than live with AQ pulling their strings, then maybe you guys have an argument. But those two conditions simply fly in the face of everything we see happening. Is Sadr going to disapear? Are Sunni Shieks going to stop getting blown up for defying AQ (without American support no less)? Are mosques going to stop being bombed? Are neighborhoods going to stop being ethnic cleansed? Are the death squads going to go into retirement? Are the fights over the oil revenues going to magically be solved? Are the Kurds going to put up with this nonsense?

Those are serious questions are all you guys have to answer is, 'we'll, we dont know unless we try'. Not good enough. It sounds incrediably self-absorved to assume the US is the catalyst for all those things, and they will (by some unknown and unstated mechanism) repair themselves to any degree that will prevent what looks exactly like the verge of a total meltdown.

What do you think happens day 1 when the US is gone and a Shiia army unit rolls into Ramadi btw? Please describe.

What happens when the first half dozen Sunni bodies show up in a mixed neighborhood without the US there to at least hold machine guns and keep people indoors instead of kicking their neighbors doors in? Please describe your vision for how this plays out.

Worse the idea that we will maintain a significant force in country as Reid and the Dems are suggestion must be the absolute WORST of both worlds. We concede defeat but maintain our provocation. How do you guys feel about that plan?

"So -- in iraq and everywhere else -- the most important thing we could do is to stop giving the world the impression that we attack the innocent. Give up air strikes except in very specific circumstances. Call for surrender, in each case where we find bad guys negotiate to let the innocent leave, offer clear surrender terms with fair trials."

Sadly our enemies intentionally make it impossible to go after them without endangering the innocent. What you are suggesting is equivalent in practice to stop going after the bad guys altogether. Unless they are stupid enough to have a bad guy convention we come across and employ their own help.

All you guys are suggesting sounds suspiciously like leave them alone and hope t