Looks like Musharef just signed his own death warrant. If BushCo has any balls at all they will put the heels to these scumbags and soon. Sadly I doubt any repricussions will come from this.

Pakistan never had any intentions of prosecuting the WOT with any true zeal. Musharef appears to have caved to the fundamentalists who truly run his country. The really scary thing is that because of the IAEA's malfeasance, Pakistan has nukes.

Looks like we are going to have to saddle up to India and hope they can take out the Paki's before they turn loose a nuke.

It does indeed look bad, but we can't tell what this means till we see how it all shakes out in practice. Is this a real deal or so many scraps of paper ? When push comes to shove, will any Pakistani soldiers actually move ? We need to see if this is anything more than window dressing for Pakistani domestic politics.

Do the Pakistanis have deniability if bomb and shells fall in Waziristan ? I mean, they can waive this paper and say it can't be them, and Waziristan is Pakistan...so the Americans wouldn't dare.

"In other words, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have traded Afghanistan for Waziristan, and gained this huge advantage: we dare not attack them there for fear of bringing Musharraf down."

Well.... lets not get carried away. Waziristan is by no means a good trade for an entire functioning (if astonishingly backwards) nation such as Afghanistan. They dont have airports and UN representatives and fields of poppies. They are living up in the mountains kicking rocks around.

I'll go further, in some sense this is good news for US forces in the region. Pakistan has essentially signalled that they are unable to control the province, making it in essence a giant open city. US strikes and raids are much more likely under this circumstance. Musharrif can hardly claim he is taking care of it anymore.

And the overthrow of Musharrif isn't going to be a result of anything sprouting for the tribal regions. They may assassinate him, but the truth is that the army and the government beureacracy has always been dominated by the Punjabis and aligned ethnicities, while the Pashtuns are their Taliban loving backwoods cousins.

Look at it this way: the province of Punjab alone has 80 million people in it, 3 times the entire population of Afhanistan, and a whoooole lot bigger than the tribal belts. The Pashtuns are about as likely to seize control of Pakistan as the Green Party is the US, probably less. Its a complicated nation with complicated people, but the people that matter have no desire to become the New Taliban, whatever happens to Musharraf.

Well, it's not like any of us haven't seen us coming for 2-3 years now, at least.

I don't know how many times in the past few years I've said that I thought Iraq looked likely to turn out better than Afghanistan, and I don't know how many times I've said that Afghanistan - and not Iraq - is turning into the next Vietnam.

Just wait. We'll get some liberal come along and talk about how Iraq was a distraction from Afghanistan. I think the next American president, likely to be a Democrat, is very likely to repeat the strategic mistakes of Americanization of the war and escalation of forces all over again.

In any event, what happens if Al Queda succeeds in a major terrorist attack against us while based on Warizistan? Do we nuke Pakistan? Do we have any other options? It seems all too likely that given enough time they will succeed at something, so we better have the answer to those questions ready when they do.

This bit of misinformation started with an ABC sponsored anti-Bush blog site, and spread rapidly from there. Within 24 hours of this "story" (in every sense of the word) coming out, President Musharraf, the Pakistani military command, and the White House castigated the purveyors of half-truths, misinformation and attacks on our allies, and revealed the truth.

The government of Pakistan signed a truce agreement with the warring tribes of Northern Pakistan, which states that the tribes would comply with Pakistani law, that the tribes would immediately cease their cross-border attacks in Afghanistan, that the tribes would immediately stop their attacks on the Pakistani government and military, that the tribes would expel foreigners from the areas under their control, that the tribes would assist in the hunt for al Qaida members (including bin Laden), that the Pakistani military would cease their operations against the tribes (some of whom were sympathetic to the Afghani Taliban, but none of whom are or were the Taliban), that the military would maintain its presence in the tribal areas, and the military would aggressively continue its hunt for members of al Qaida and the Afghani Taliban.

Jim do you have any sources on that information?

Rev. Jim, that certainly changes what I was going to post. Any sources of reliable information you can point to would be greatly apppreciated.

Gabriel:
What could Mr. Bush do? There is no telling what we'd get as a replacement for Musharaf.

Mark:
Waziristan is a great trade for this reason: we can't hit them in Waziristan. If I'm Osama I'll take a completely safe one bedroom over a very vulnerable three bedroom.

Reassurances that a despised minority can't seize control of Pakistan unfortunately are no more convincing than reassurances that a handful of guys from Tikrit, all of whom were minority Sunni in a majority Shiite nation, could gain control of Iraq. Or that Alawites could run Syria. In any event, they don't need control, they only need enough power to exclude government forces from their area in order to create a safe haven.

Celebrim:
We do nothing. That's the problem. In theory an attack from Waziristan would be the moral equivalent of an attack from a London-based Muslim group. According to the polite fiction Pakistan is an ally in the GWOT.

Rev. Jim:
The Pakistani military got beat up for five years. Now they return to their barracks in exchange for the promises of Taliban-allied tribal leaders? And we're supposed to buy that as anything but face-saving for a government that knows full well the Taliban will use the treaty for toilet paper? We had a deal with North Vietnam: when they broke it we didn't go back in.

If Dems were smart they'd hold Bush's feet to the fire by campaigning openly for a "nuke Pakistan first" policy; "vote for me and I'll make sure we nuke Pakistan before they nuke us."

Up the ante. All in. Call the bluff; by not bluffing.

Of course all they want is a big talk-fest where Kofi Annan and the giant paper maiche puppet heads can lecture us that it's all America's fault and we deserved 9/11. So Bush skates. Because no Democrat can offer a more compelling alternative.

OF COURSE binnie will use this to seize control of Pakistan and launch their nukes at us. But Bush pays no political consequences because Dems KNOW binnie's there and moving towards control (how many near miss assasination attempts has Musharref survived?). Yet they balk at actually doing anything about it except blathering on like Kerry about the "international community" and international law and the Geneva Convention obligating us to make sure Al Qaeda has Korans quite literally handled with gloves (so no impure infidel touches them).

Musharraf is going to fall anyway, at some point. I say we hit Waziristan hard and relentlessly, and make a point of refusing to negotiate about it with anyone.

If Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of fanatics.....well, that is another problem altogether--but I suspect that India and a few other countries might help us solve it.

I think it's definitely a defeat on a front, which happens in world wars. In this case, it is a front we lost because our ally was unequal to the task -- Pakistan's internal instability made it impossible to carry out this war.

That said, one doesn't lose a war like this on one front. There is a useful strategy that comes from allowing an enemy an apparent safe zone.

First, he will gather there, believing it safe; this creates, in the present time, an opportunity for intelligence operations, and in the future, a target-rich environment.

Second, feeling safe, he may not take such pains to hide. When that happens -- well, a US missile strike, followed by a hearty and appropriately loud protest by Musharrff, is not likely to be enough to collapse Pakistan's government. Or, if the government someday falls on its own, we will know where to strike.

The safer they feel, the easier their networks are to penetrate with spies, and the easier they'll be to attack when the opportunity arises.

Better to have had Pakistan win the fight, of course. They did not, so we move to another strategy, and pursue the war.

The US is no longer capable of winning wars.

Why? Because we have a lunatic left that has brainwashed the American public into being overly concerned about civilian casualties.

In 2001, had we been slightly less concerned about 'civilians', and noted that 50-90% of Pashtuns support the Taliban, we could have quashed the Taliban, without worrying about 100,000 'innocent' Pashtuns killed. The Taliban would not be able to regenerate itself.

In Iraq, if we actually did 'shock and awe' like we claimed, we would have eliminated enough Baathists and other Sunni Triangle populations that no insurgency would have been able to form.

Same with VietNam. If we applied more force, and the VC sustained twice as many losses, we would have won.

How did we win WW2, by killing as few as possible? No.

How did we win the first Gulf War (to the extent that it was an unfinished job)? We killed 100,000 of the Saddam's army in a very short time.

Now, we have little choice but to wait until it gets much worse, and then do something when it is much harder.

Sadly, I just don't see the current War or Terror ending before 5-10 million Westerners and 100-200 million Muslims are dead. This is more than WW2 or the Cold War.

Why can't we hit Waziristan? We've already established that sovereignty is meaningless when our security is at stake (in Afghanistan and Iraq.) If we go after the Taliban inside Waziristan (no longer stopping at the border in deference to Musharref), Musharref can simply complain bitterly that we've breached their sovreignty and do nothing to stop us, shrug and say, "We have no control over Waziristan anyway. What could we do?"

It wouldn't be the first time that a country has publicly admonished us while privately supporting our actions.

In international politics, there's always a lot more going on than meets the eye.

"If Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of fanatics.....well, that is another problem altogether--but I suspect that India and a few other countries might help us solve it."

Don't be so sure. India hasn't disarmed Pakistan yet, nor did they bomb their program before they had nukes (like Israel bombed Iraq).

Plus, in Afghanistan we had all the allies we could want, including all NATO countries like France and Canada. That still wasn't able to quash the Taliban, and hence the problem we have today.

The US and the West is no longer capable of winning wars.

But Bush has publically stated that we're no longer interested in chasing down Osama. So why worry?

"But Bush has publically stated that we're no longer interested in chasing down Osama. So why worry?"

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda, operating in a nation that has nuclear weapons (not just a program like Iran, official, COMPLETED nukes), and has produced the likes of AQ Khan, AND consistently ranks near the top in lists of the world's most corrupt countries, does not worry you?

All you care about is hating Bush, even though 75% of his Presidency is over. A nuke in a city where you live, that would kill you, is secondary.

Amazing. Fascinating. Maybe nature programs some members of the human species to act as vehicles for the removal of genetic waste matter from the gene pool. Hence, they take self-eliminating actions. Suddenly, those who support suicide bombings, partial-birth abortion, genital mutilation, gay marriage, etc. all seem to be joined in a united purpose.

But I digress....

Consider whether this will still endanger your life after January 2009..

I have to agree with Grim on this one. Yes it's a defeat on that front, but there are certain advantages.

Many people don't seem to understand that the border areas, while politically part of Pakistan, have never been seriously controlled by the central Government, or even the British before them. So this will not be as big of a change as you might expect. The Pakistani military never really had the training, equipment and ability to effectively control the tribes in that terrain.

Gabriel,

The IAEA had nothing to do with Pakistan getting the bomb. They never joined the NPT (along with India) so the IAEA never had access or authority there.

GK,

Comparing the so-called GWOT to WWII is apples-oranges. A "total war" concept works against nation-states but not the enemy we're fighting. The center's of gravity are completely different. The Soviets tried a total war strategy in Afghanistan and they lost. The Russians tried it in Chechnya and the Chechens are alive, kicking, and killing Russians today.

The reason we can't "crush" the Taliban is because many in the local Pashtun population (which straddles the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) still support them. The way you defeat an insurgency like the Taliban is to kill the hard-core fighters while working to gain the loyalty of population that tacitly supports them. A total war concept alienates the population, creates more insurgents and only ensures an eventual loss unless one is willing to flirt with ethnic cleansing and genocide. Read the new Counter-insurgency Army Field manual for a COIN 101 course.

Actually, just read the next post up here:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009012.php

It explains everything nicely.

The way you defeat an insurgency like the Taliban is to kill the hard-core fighters while working to gain the loyalty of population that tacitly supports them.

The total war option wouldn't work here, but trying to gain the loyalty of the population isn't working either. We've been trying these tactics for many years, and the situation is getting worse. It's time to look for better alternatives.

Asymetric warfare offers great protection for the terrorists, who can hide behind secrecy and human shields - but it doesn't protect the politicians, bankers or businessmen leaders who support them. Some terrorists don't fear death, but all bankers and businessmen do. Let's hit the easy targets first.

Imagine if the only solution to a termite infestation was to

A. step on a few termites, feed the rest new wood in an attempt to win their affection
B. blow up the house

These are the only two alternatives we're ever offered when dealing with terrorism. No wonder we keep losing.

Just for the record we seem now to have two "Michael Reynolds" commenting here. I'm the one who recently retreated to the pseudonym "M. Takhallus" and moved to sidewaysmencken.bl*gspot.com, and wrote the piece we're commenting on.

The Michael Reynolds above is someone else.

I hope I've made that as confusing as possible.

Wow, I agree with Mark #3: but...

"In other words, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have traded Afghanistan for Waziristan, and gained this huge advantage: we dare not attack them there for fear of bringing Musharraf down."

isn't right. The Taliban already had Waziristan, and the continuing ability to kinda-sorta fend off Musharraf while still exporting fighters to Afghanistan demonstrates that.

Capitulation to the Taliban my butt: this is Musharraf getting the tribes to realize that the only way they're surviving is if they knock it off next door. And if they do (since as Pakistan has demonstrated, tribal elders are NOT "untouchable" ... tell me why I care about Waziristan? Even on the Pakistani scene, seems to me that there's much more important stuff to worry about.

Re- dealing with insurgencies, the West is under a dangerous misconception about dealing with this kind of situation. Appocalypse Now makes the point pretty well- societies dont respond just to the side they 'like' more, which seems to be the extent of our take on winning hearts and minds. If they fear the enemy more than they 'like' us, fear wins every time. That story from A.N. about the North Vietnamese cutting off the arms of children America had immunized is alleged to be true, but the point is definately true. If you are forced to back a side, do you pick the side willing to immunize your kids, or the side willing to hack their arms off if you defy them?

The problem is that warfare since the dawn of man has included the principle of communal punishment. If your side loses, your people are going to suffer somehow. Modern times have presented the illusion that this can be avoided, and if we can avoid it for ourselves we are somehow obligated to do everything possible to avoid visiting it on the enemy. Up to and including not fighting to our advantage if the cost will be too high. This is a dangerous attitude, particularly when engaged in warfare with an enemy that not only doesnt agree, but is perfectly willing to take advantage of that weakness.

The carrot alone doesnt work, but the stick alone doesnt work so great either. Its the combination of the two that is works best. Lets not forget Alexander the Great was the last foriegner to dominate the region we are discussing. He did it by respecting the locals, allowing them to live as they chose generally, and brutally massacring anyone that took advantage of that. I'm not saying we need to massacre anyone, but I am saying that we need to remember that unless their is a price we make them pay, harboring our enemies is a no-brainer for these people. On the other hand if they have to decide between bombs reigning down on the region and their crops burning, maybe they will decide babysitting OBL and his crew isnt their best option.

Insurgencies are all about loyalty. Unfortunately, people don't change loyalties quickly or easily, which is why the kind of fundamental change needed to end support for the Taliban will take a generation or more, especially considering Afghanistans tribal and warlord history. We don't have the option that Alexander had of mass slaughter - not only because it's against our principles, but also because we did not conquer Afghanistan and we are not an occupying power.

The Taliban will try to keep control of the people through fear. That will only work for so long when there is an alternative available. When the SF guys go through a village and provide medical care, or immunizations for livestock, or the PRT's construct something that actually improves the living standard of the locals, then we demonstrate to those locals a better alternative to the Taliban. Sure, the insurgents will come through later that night and threaten or whatever, but those kinds of acts will only push the people to our side more quickly.

At the same time, combat forces are killing the active fighters. Despite the increase in violence in Afghanistan, overall I'm upbeat on the long-term prospects. I think what we're doing is correct and will win out in the long run as long as NATO and the US have the will to stay for the long haul.

"The people are like water and the army is like fish" - Mao.

Mao understood this long ago. The key center of gravity for an insurgency is the people. If you win their loyalty, then the fish will die.

"The people are like water and the army is like fish" - Mao.

And if you heat the water into steam, you boil the fish.

Similarly, if you transfer the water to another location or disperse the water across dry ground, the fish asphyxiate from lack of oxygen or starve from lack of food.

These analogies illustrate why genocide, population transfer, and population dispersal are highly effective methods of defeating insurgencies ---- as well as savage tribes like the Waziris.

They're also relatively quick, unlike the "approved" counter-insurgency methods favored by Andy.

"Winning the hearts and minds" of a hostile population to defeat an insurgency is akin to attempting to lower the temperature of a large tropical lake to freezing by throwing in blocks of ice. It can be done. However, it's extremely difficult in practice because of high ground temperature, high air temperature, high heat from the tropical sun, and high water temperature from any streams or rivers that flow into the tropical lake.

It also takes a very long time. Time we should not give our enemies and the populations that support them.

"Ask me for anything but time!" -- Napoleon I

James' comments do explain some of the reasons why the methods he discusses have been used in the past, and will remain with us. The truth is, they do work at least some of the time.

Sudan's ongoing genocide/ resettlement/ population dispersal operation in Darfur, for example, have been a great success. Black people are confirmed as the slave race Arab ideology has always held them to be, and lands can be given as booty to Arabic tribes et, al. to reinforce their loyalty. Nor has their been any reaction of consequence from the neighbours. Success on all metrics for Sudan - many thanks also to the experienced slavers of the Arab League, with minor supporting roles from China & Russia.

Choosing these options also has costs, however, and it's worthwhile to think hard about what those costs are. James, you do serious discussion no service by eliding them.

I'll add that one of the things we DO have in Afghanistan is time; there is no present or emerging existential threat from that quarter (unlike, say, Iran, or Pakistan if it were to flip totally), nor is the commitment level so high that it can't be maintained more or less indefinitely without hindering necessary action on other fronts (unlike, say, Iraq). In other words, time IS something we can ask for.

I'll add that one of the things we DO have in Afghanistan is time; there is no present or emerging existential threat from that quarter

We were probably saying the same thing on 9/10/2001. Why should we worry about Afghanistan? They don't have nukes. We only have to worry about nukes.

The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Apparently, they hate us because we helped them.

I guess it's time we stopped helping them.

That's not to say that James Jones' idea, bombing indiscriminately, is better than negotiating with Islamists - both ideas are unworkable. There has to be some middle ground.

Joe,

The Balkans, specifically Croatia, is another example of where ethnic cleansing "worked" - at least for now.

While I agree that such extreme measures certainly can be effective, at least in the short term, they end up kicking the can down the road. I'll bring up the Balkans again where ethnic conflict has persisted for a very long time. Croatia may be stable and peaceful now, but the people they gave the boot and their ancestors will have long memories.

It looks like I touched a nerve, Joe. Good.

We are involved in a global war with militant Islam. Afghanistan is merely one front in that global struggle. And as you point out in your excellent post, "Afghanistan: Opium, War, and Strategy", it is an economy of force front.

This implies that we will not have the concentrations of manpower and resources necessary to effectively wage the kind of counter-insurgency campaign that Andy advocates. In terms of my analogy about attempting to freeze a large tropical lake, it means the following: We won't have enough blocks of ice; and, we won't have enough laborers and equipment to throw the ice in fast enough; and, finally, we won't have enough laborers and equipment to seal off all of the rivers and streams that flow into the tropical lake.

So what can we do to have maximum impact with the limited forces we are willing to commit to the Afghan theatre of operations?

Destroy the most hostile tribes and regions, such as the Waziris in newly independent Waziristan. Make it very clear that we are going to fully apply the Marine Corps slogan: “No better friend, no worse enemy.”

This may require temporary surges of additional combat power into the region such as sending 18th Airborne Corps or the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force for 3-6 month campaigns. Or it may not. We have not yet demonstrated to militant Islam the full deadliness of modern American combat units fighting with completely unrestricted rules of engagement and a policy of no prisoners except for intelligence collection.

It is time they learned.

There is a very high probability that the casualty exchange rates will be greater than 100:1. There is a substantial probability that they will be greater than 1,000:1, especially when we operate with heavy artillery support and heavy air support.

Even the most obtuse Islamic tribal leader will be able to figure out that those are tribe-breaking, indeed, nation-breaking casualty rates. And since we will no longer make any distinction between enemy combatants and enemy civilians, it will be glaringly obvious that continuing to fight us for any sustained campaign will result in the death of the tribe or reduce it to a tiny remnant.

Meanwhile, those tribes and regions that are friendly, or at least non-hostile, will benefit from aid, trade, new infrastructure, and new educational opportunities. And that’s the point. It should be a binary solution set: Be friendly, or at least neutral, and get benefits; be an enemy, or shelter/support those who are our enemies, and get death.

You said I need to address the possible serious consequences of a more ruthless strategy toward militant Islam. (Perhaps you just meant in the Afghan theatre of operations, but since you also mentioned Iran and Pakistan, I assume you meant the consequences it might have for our global war with militant Islam).

Some Muslims will hate us more. Some jihadi sympathizers will become active terrorists more quickly. Most Muslims will fear us more and treat us with more respect. In the words of Osama bin Laden: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally choose the strong horse.”

We must establish beyond all doubt that we are the strong horse in the war with militant Islam. Even if we have to kill the weak horse to prove it.

Finally, you say that we have time to wage a long, slow, low-to-mid intensity guerilla war with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the militant Islamic tribes in southeastern Afghanistan, northwestern Pakistan, and Waziristan. Therefore, we should go slow and gentle and take a generation or more to win the struggle. In contrast, you cite the rapidly metastasizing Iranian nuclear threat and the potential/probable Islamist takeover of nuclear armed Pakistan as examples of militant Islamic states that must be defeated more quickly. Presumably, you approve of more ruthless tactics and strategy to defeat them rapidly.

I agree that we could keep the current operations in the Afghan theatre going for generations. (Your description of the fighting as an Olympic event for NATO Special Forces is a great metaphor).

I disagree that we should keep the current operations in the Afghan theatre or anywhere else in the War with militant Islam going for generations. This war has already gone on for almost five years. Washington strategists and politicians are talking seriously about a Long War with militant Islam of thirty, fifty, or even one hundred years.

This is strategic idiocy. Our national leadership is trying to re-fight the Cold War with Islam while ignoring how the rise of China and other peer/near-peer competitors will fundamentally alter the strategic balance over the next twenty to thirty years. The Chinese are fully aware that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We aren’t going to have the luxury of focusing on just one major threat in the 21st century.

It is also a perverse denial of the obligation of every state to protect its own citizens and military at the expense of its enemy’s military and citizens. We owe militant Islam nothing, not even existence. Yet every year we drag the war out, we pay a growing blood price among our military and we expose our citizens to more and more risk of terrible casualties. And we do it because our leadership values the lives of our enemies more than it values the lives of our own citizens.

"We have not yet demonstrated to militant Islam the full deadliness of modern American combat units fighting with completely unrestricted rules of engagement and a policy of no prisoners except for intelligence collection."

Except we no longer have this capability. We may have amazing technologies and superbly trained personnel. But we also have a fifth-column left that controls the media, gets away with undermining every effort of the WoT under the mask of 'tolerance', and the rest of the country has not figured out their true agenda or how to stop them.

The full deadliness of the US military will never be permitted to be used, under any circumstances. The left will not allow it.

GK has it right.

To make them fear us more than they fear the ruthless jihadi killers, we must be even more ruthless.

The terrorists have killed 10,000? We must kill 100,000.

A village harbors terrorists because resisting them will kill dozens? We must kill every man woman and child in the village.

Only when a man yelling \"Death to America\" is beaten to death himself by the fearful will America be truly safe.

However, modern America will never allow the tactics that are necessary to win this war. Are modern Americans willing to accept the innocent blood that must be shed to preserve it? Unequivocally no. As John Perhoretz put it, we are too \"nice\" to win this kind of war.

The left has had its victories in the United States, and now there is a price in blood that will have to be paid for allowing them those victories.

In this war of national survival, the United States can no longer afford the luxury of democracy. It\'s people have been made weak on a diet of leftist diatribes. It has lost its taste for the destruction of its enemies no matter what the cost.

And now it must regain that willingness - and the price will not be cheap. And it will not be at its people\'s choice. In order to be transformed into a society that can take the actions that will ensure survival, America must be led by the strong.

It is a pity. Against clear enemies like World War II, this society might awaken. But this current conflict is too gray for those whose vision has been blurred by the constant poisoning of the left. They cannot understand what we here see perfectly. That only one civilization can remain standing, and to win requires dispensing all the niceties that we\'ve been allowed these last 100 years.

It\'s the elephant in the room, and I\'m quite aware that it\'s an uncomfortable truth. But I\'ll bet heavily that most of the posters in this topic recognize the fact that the American people can no longer be trusted with their own defence. Not when it\'s very survival is at stake.

The rules have changed, and noone escapes paying a price, least of all America.

You're all casting about desperately for some way to blame the Left for the failure of a war that was carried out precisely according to the plan drawn up by Donald Rumsfeld.

This isn't just absurd, it's dishonorable. It's a refusal to accept responsibility. It's a refusal to face reality. It's a ridiculous fantasy, and fantasy is what got us in this mess.

Number of tactical or strategic decisions in either Afghanistan or Iraq that were made by "the Left?" Zero.

Number of times the Democrats have cut funds intended for either Afghanistan or Iraq? Zero.

Number of times 'the Left" cut troop levels? Zero.

It's true that we don't seem to have the stomach for total war in the modern era and in fact I've written about this on more than one occasion. But it's not a Right/Left thing. It's about a sense that not enough is at risk. And that feeling is very much bipartisan, originating in large part in the White House.

It's impossible to take seriously the notion that our civilization is at risk when the administration continuously lies (about Saddam and 9/11 for example), and turns terror into a partisan wedge issue, fights half-assed wars and carries out feckless occupations, cuts taxes and asks no sacrifice from the American people, manages to avoid even mentioning the name "Osama" til it serves a purpose for the politics of the mid-terms. Each of those things is a signal to the American people that the GWOT isn't really very serious after all. So surprise, surprise, no one is ready to nuke Islamabad.

We've had a massive failure of leadership since 9/11. The people have not been told the truth, have not been enlisted in the fight, have not been convinced that their leaders know what they're doing. Mr. Bush is no longer even heard by 60% of the American people and that is not the fault of "liberals" it is the fault of the president himself.

Where have all the chest-thumping patriots been while pro-war moderates like yours truly were screaming that the war effort was failing? They've been busy singing lullabies, telling us we were winning, denouncing anyone who called for more men, more effort, more comittment, more effectiveness.

Now we're staring defeat in the face and it's the fault of the liberals? Bull. It's the fault of the men who made the decisions, men who are, to a man, conservative.

And once again, that's me above there. I don't know why my browser keeps doing this.

I agree that the leadership should have asked Americans for more sacrifice, executed the war better, etc.

But, I think takhallus does prove that it is the left that has made this war difficult. In his whole screed, he anger is entirely diverted towards Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., but he has little anger towards Islamic terrorists (beyond one man, Osama). He still chants his 3 year old debunked fanaticm of 'Saddam was not a threat, and had no WMDs'. He still thinks 9/11 was a one-time event, and does not think beyond the terror attacks after 9/11 in London, Bali, Beslan, Madrid, Delhi, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, etc. as anything more than reactions to the War in Iraq by offended Muslims.

There are a million ways to prove that takhallus and his ilk truly are more bothered by Bush and Co. than the prospect of more terror attacks in which he himself may die, or living under Sharia law.

1) A normal person was joyed the day Zarqawi was killed. Leftists are not, saying that it was a stunt by Bush to prop up war support.
2) Takhallus brings up 'tax cuts' as something evil - more political mud slinging, particularly when Clinton cut taxes on capital gains in 1997 - something that I applaud. Capital gains are more skewed to the rich than income, by the way.
3) Ask a leftist if they are willing to Sharia law creep into parts of the US. They either won't know what Sharia law is, won't answer, or call you a bigot. So much for their claimed support for feminism, racial equality, science, and opposition to torture and the death penalty.

His post PROVES that the left has undermined the war, despite his intent to prove the opposite.

"Number of tactical or strategic decisions in either Afghanistan or Iraq that were made by "the Left?" Zero.

Number of times the Democrats have cut funds intended for either Afghanistan or Iraq? Zero.

Number of times 'the Left" cut troop levels? Zero."

Well, let me add :

Number of times the Left has said that Guantanamo terrorist detainees are justifiably being held there : Zero

Number of times the Left has approved of wiretapping phonecalls from Al-Qaeda terrorists to individuals in America : Zero

Number of times the Left has openly said that despite America's flaws, America still does more good for the world than Islam does : Zero

Number of times the Left has admitted that the Patriot Act is a good thing, particularly if we are to stop terror without overseas military campaigns, as the left suggests : Zero

Number of times the Left has said that Bush is not aggressive enough in fighting terrorists : Zero

Number of times a Democrat like Joe Lieberman was allowed to support the Iraq War unashamedly, and still allowed to remain in the party : Zero

Number of solutions the Left has presented to deal with Iran in a way that helps America : Zero

Number of times the Left has admitted that Abu Ghraib was bad behavior by a few bad apples and not offical orders from Rumsfeld : Zero

Number of times the Left has demonstrated that they are more angry about the beheading of Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong and others, than they are about Abu Ghraib : Zero

Number of times the Left has outed extremists in their own ranks, like Ward Churchill, that say 9/11 is America's fault : Zero

I could write more...

Reynolds,
I will continue to blame the opposition to the Bush administration ( because it has long been obvious from the hypocrisy and contradiction that they are not opposing the war, just blindly opposing whatever the Bush administration does ) for undermining the war effort.

That is because the blind, irrational, and hypocritical opposition has undermined the Bush administration's ability to follow through with the kind of policies and strategies that are effective. Undermined the ability to push forward against Syria and Iran. Undermined effective airport screening profiling.

As well as supported the shrill, false claims of discrimination by anti-American groups like CAIR.

Reynolds,
Your claim that we have had a "failure" of leadership is truly disturbing. Its disturbing because you don't want to admit that there has been a constant fever-pitched effort by Democrats to undermine the Bush administration's ability to lead.

GK:
You are hallucinating.

. . .but he has little anger towards Islamic terrorists (beyond one man, Osama). He still chants his 3 year old debunked fanaticm of 'Saddam was not a threat, and had no WMDs'. He still thinks 9/11 was a one-time event, and does not think beyond the terror attacks after 9/11 in London, Bali, Beslan, Madrid, Delhi, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, etc. as anything more than reactions to the War in Iraq by offended Muslims.

Substantiate any portion of that. Any of it. When have I chanted that Saddam was not a threat. What I have chanted for three years is that if we're going to fight wars we need to win them.

Your second note I'll take as tacit admission that I'm right. You blame Mr. Bush's failure on the small, powerless Left wing's refusal to be sufficiently enthusiastic? That's absurd. The "Left" has precisely no power. None. They control no portion of government.

Mr. Bush has gotten EVERYTHING he asked for. EVERY SINGLE THING. Every gun, every soldier, every dollar. He has made every military decision. He has been thwarted in NOTHING.

And now you want to excuse this fiasco my saying "The Left criticized the president, waaaah." The president failed because Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd were mean to him? That's your explanation? It's all Dan Rather's fault? Pitiful.

Robin:

Utter nonsense.

What has undermined our ability to project force is not "the Left." What has undermined our ability to use force is:

1) That we have too small an army. Don Rumsfeld, you may want to recall, favored cutting the size of the army, not increasing it. We're fighting two wars right now with guys going for their fourth tour. We're cutting standards for recruitment and backdoor drafting Guard and ready reserve. Equipment is burning out and not being replaced. The army that the Right kept telling us was hollow and undersized all through the Clinton years is now, magically, supposed to be capable of fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran and keeping open the possibility of North Korea? With a total of 1.5 million guys in uniform?

2) That Mr. Bush is no longer trusted as a leader. He's not trusted as a leader for the excellent reason that he has proven to be incompetent and a liar. On 9/12 he had the entire American people, and most of the world behind him. Now he has 35% of the American people and no one else. That is his own doing. His own failure as a leader. People won't long follow an incompetent leader.