"just about to be crowned with complete success"

Do you think it can wait until we're closer to the midterms?

Do you think it can wait until we're closer to the midterms?

Ash, if positive aspects of the situation in Iraq materialize anytime between now and November 7th, your side is going to insist that it was all orchestrated for political purposes anyway. I'll have to admit, though, even I would be a little suspicious if something major happened, say, the last week of October.

Perhaps the reverse is true: IRAN and SYRIA, as well as the Palestinians, are timing their actions to lead up to our elections.

The goal for Iraq is a stable, democratic, Iraq who is allied with the US, especially in the broader war on terror. It is unknown at this time whether all of these worthy goals can be achieved. So much of it depends on hope. Hope that the Iraqis can make democracy work, hope that the democratic Iraq will ally with the US, hope that the Iraqi security forces will be up to the job, and finally hope that the seed of democracy will spread throughout the middle east. I don't like foreign policy based on hope. In other words, I'm no huge fan of this foreign policy but it is the one we have. Frankly the Iraqis have made it farther with democracy than I ever thought they could!! That being said, there is a long way to go. It does not seem to me that we are even close to being able to crown Iraq as a complete success.

If we are to win the broader war on terror, something will have to be done about Syria. Syria actively supports the Iraqi "insurgency" and is a major supporter of Islamic extremists terrorists. The regime will either need to be removed or it will need to change behavior. The same goes for Iran. Israel is our most important ally in the region and probably in the world. It is imperative that the USA support them.

Macker

You may be right. I had somewhat of the same thoughts as you seem to be having. It seems to me that especially the Iraqi insurgents have been unable to defeat the US military and they have been unable to halt the expansion of Democracy in Iraq. What they have done extremely well is to kill innocent civilians, in large numbers. This is likely being done for propaganda purposes. The enemy probably learned this lesson from the Vietnam war. When you are unable to defeat the US military, direct a psy ops campaign at the American people to sap their will. The terrorists and their allies seem to be playing the American and Western media like a violin and they don't even seem to realize it.

B. Poster, you make an excellent point when you say:
"The enemy probably learned this lesson from the Vietnam war. When you are unable to defeat the US military, direct a psy ops campaign at the American people to sap their will."

However, you left out what may be the most important part of this equation---the ACTIVE support and participation of the American media. I do not agree that the media "don't seem to realize..." they are being played "...like a violin.." I think they are active participants, as proven over and over again by the clearly agenda-driven psuedo-news outlets.

No psy ops operation can succeed if the targets don't know it is going on. The Viet Nam effort succeeded ONLY because of the overt participation of the media in the effort to undermine the determination of the American public, through an active and energetic campaign of misinformation and emotional manipulation.

They were so successful regarding the fact that America, in Viet Nam, ended up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, they were smug about their projected success in doing the same thing in Iraq. The blogosphere and Fox News have cramped their style, by making actual facts available to a public that used to be totally dependent on the MSM for their "news", so they have had to resort to tactics and extremes that would have previously been unthinkable---witness the betrayal of national interest shown in the recent NYT effprts to undermine the Administration and cripple its intelligence-gathering abilities.

The overt participation in the misinformation of the American public is blatant. They KNOW that merely repeating something often enough will establish it in the unthinking mind as fact, so they constantly repeat phrases they know are lies but which are vital to the Cause:
Domestic Spying.....
Warrantless Wiretaps.....
Illegal whatever........
Covert Agent.......
and so on.

How long has hit been since you saw an article pointing out that approximately a third of the military deaths in Iraq are not combat-related? Never??? I wonder why?? When the total death count was nearing 1500, several military people talked about the fact that nearly 500 of those deaths were due to accidents, illnesses, and disease. How could this not be reported to the American public? Don't they Have A Right To Know?

How long has it been since any MSM outlet compared the annual actual combat-caused fatality count in Iraq, among trained and armed military personnel in a war zone, with, say, the annual murder rate in any major American city? You know, just to keep things in perspective. Never? Wonder why... It couldn't possibly be because more CIVILIANS are killed annually in American cities which are "led" by Democrat mayors than in war zones, could it? It would be terribly invconvenient to write about more civilians being killed in one or two American cities in 2003 than the number of soldiers in a war zone in that same period.

Perspective? Have you ever seen an MSM article on the casualties of WW Two battles, daily body counts of Americans fighting for our freedom and even survival as a country? Or on the conflicting political views of the time, regarding the war, and the historical persepective when we look back on those years? No...those of us who study history know the relative costs of this war vs others, and the general cost of freedom over the decades, but the MSM are certainly not making any effort to educate the public about this.

Because the LAST thing the Leftist-Media Complex needs or could tolerate would be actual information distributed openly to all. The LMC has succeeded in the past only because of its complete monopoly on all "news" media----radio, television, and the print press.

“Perspective? Have you ever seen an MSM article on the casualties of WW Two battles, daily body counts of Americans fighting for our freedom and even survival as a country?” Posted by: Almiranta

Al, I totally agree. I am sure that scores of GIs raped teenage French girls during the liberation of France, and than set their bodies on fire and massacred their families, but the MSM had the good sense not publish those atrocities.

Death to the Press!

I have never tried posting here. Is war all the republicans are about these days? How about some diplomacy for a change instead of threats. Bush had a chance at greatness after 9-11 and has completely blown it. It's too bad.

Barney, I know that their may have been some atrocities done by American solders during WW2. Do you have any verifiable examples, links, history books? If not, lets not vilify the American solder without sold proof. So far I am not aware of varifiable stories of WW2 American solders committing atrocities.

Barney

I'm not suggesting the media should not report incidents, such as the rape case you refer to, or Haditha or Abu Ghraib, as well as other incidents of American misconduct. The case is being investigated and if the service men are guilty they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This in contrast to the terrorists who actually celebrate the killing of non combatants. I estimate terrorists are killing an average of about 30 non combatants a day with their attacks on market places and other places. Saddam Huessein killed about 57 per day during his reign. Most of the terrorists now are former regime loyalists or their Al Qaeda allies. We should be outraged at mis behavior by Americans. We also need to be outraged at the killing of non combatants by terrorists. The msm would rather look for root causes than to condemn the terrorists. The media talks endlessly about the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. They talked endlessly about corruption within the former coalition provisional authority. We hear much less about the UN oil for food scandal. We hear very little about the possibilities of Saddam's WMD being transfered to Syria. Next to nothing is given about the nature of Islamic Extremists and what they are trying to accomplish. There is extensive information available about Saddam's active support of terrorists. Yet the media talks very little about this.

When I referred to a psy ops campaign by someone is when terrorists kill scores of people with an IED this is somehow the Americans fault. This is reported around the world and in the US. Rather than condemn the terrorists, they generally condemn the Americans or they discuss it without providing much information on the threat to America the terrorists pose. The terrorists seem to have figured out the more civilian blood they can spill that this will weaken the will of the Americans and their allies. For the size of the operation and the difficulty of the mission, American misconduct seems to have been very isolated. This is compared with the actions of the insurgents who kill civilians for the sport of it. None of this is to excuse the misconduct of Americans. It is simply to provide additional perspective. The media often times fails to provide the full context. The Americans and our allies are trying to help bring liberty to an oppressed people. To treat America and its coaliton allies as equal to or worse than the terrorists is at best misguided and at worst morally reprehensible.

None of what I have written is meant to suggest that the Iraq operations were the strategically correct decision. Unfortunately it is beginning to appear as though it was not the strategically correct decision. The problem with pulling out now is two fold: 1.)The soverign elected Iraqi government will likely to fall the terrorists and the former regime elements. This would mean betraying them and turning our backs on those who are seeking liberty. 2.) The new Iraq would become an even bigger terrorist haven than the one under Saddam was.

I have suggested sending more troops to try and bring the security situation under control. I want to give the Iraqis every tool at our disposal that is consistent with American national security to achieve liberty. We can help them along the way but we cannot control it. Ultimately we can support liberty around the world but we can only guarantee our own.

No one with any political influence is suggesting death to the press. When statements like that are made, the person who makes them damages their credibility.

how 'bout the USAF & the IAF pound the shiite outta Hamas camps, the WMD storage facilities, & the Bakka valley where the SOB's refine heroin & counterfeit our money (an act of war in itself).

whadda they gonna do(?), cause more trouble in Iraq & the Gaza than they r now?

death, where is thy sting 4 the last of the baathists?

Uh, Keep to the Right, Baloney was being sarcastic. You see, he and Ashley hate this administration, hate this country, and celebrate any bad news that comes out of Iraq or Afghanistan, especially when it involves our men and women in uniform, whom they hate as well.

Some people--especially those with an agenda--can ignore atrocities committed daily, in their own neighborhoods, while singling out a few bad apples in our military.

Spook, while it would appear to be a little suspicious if something momentous occurred just before the midterms, I would not expect this administration to play with people's lives for political gain. After all, this isn't the Clinton administration.

War...

OhioOrrin, where exactly are those WMD storage facilities?

keefer, their hatred of the men and women in uniform is kind of dysfunctional don't you think? After all they REALLY don't deserve the hatred from the left now do they? It seems to be a blanket hatred of anything to do with war. It seems the left want to avoid war at all costs, even to their own detriment. They cut themselves off from the real world in a neo-isolationism, a way of avoiding harsh reality. Diplomacy is all they know, and unfortunately history shows that a diplomacy only philosophy fails all too often. While the right does not really love war but knows it is tragically sometimes necessary. Of course the right is falsely accused by the left of loving war.

nate, I don't know if this link will answer any or all your questions but here it ihttp://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.htmls.

B.Poster, Almiranta, et. al.,

I think you guys expect far too much from the mainstream media, especially in this country. Commercial media content is driven primarily by advertising revenue. Media companies must give great consideration to the anticipated commercial success of their content, because that is what ultimately dtermines the financial viablity of the company. So they print, by and large, the things that people are the most willing to pay for.

Obviously, this applies more to the sleazy, bottom-of-the-barrel media outfits like the NYT and Fox News. Fox News is the home of Geraldo Rivera, not because he is any sort of journalist, but because he is a tabloid personality, and Fox News is a tabloid outfit.

The NYT is the same sort of tabloid outfit. In the run-up to the Iraq war, the New York Times were one of president Bush's sluttiest cheerleaders, printing nearly all of the administration's proclamations about Iraq with nary a hint of journalistic restraint. The embarrassment that the paper has subsequently suffered (evidenced by various resignations and a humiliating public apology) seems to have caused them to turn on the Bush administration with almost comedic childishness.

But is anyone really surprised by this? Why do we expect Fox News and the NYT to behave like the Economist and the WSJ?

I understand the frustration, but I think the blame is misplaced here. Getting angry at tabloid media companies for doing tabloidy things is very unlikely to prevent them from catering to their most loyal customers, because that's just what they do. As with most failures that occur in capitalistic and democratic societies, it is WE, the voting, spending public, that are ultimately to blame.

KttR and keefer, yes it is always someone else’s fault. The right is a made of p*ssys that can’t or wont take responsibility. This administration can’t change course because that would admit a mistake. Meanwhile, thousands of servicemen and civilians are dieing in a war that should had been over with two years ago at most.

Keep to the Right,

Thanks for the link, but the article appears to have been removed. Do you know where else it might be?

Everyone, read Baloney's response to me and KttR, a couple of posts above, and someone please tell me what this idiot wrote. He writes in tongues, I guess, or he's a window-licker with Alzheimer's.

Also, someone try and explain to this feeble-minded moron that changing course, i.e. "redeploying," isn't an optoion that offers success. That it's got nothing to do with admitting mistakes, because while mistakes were made, as they are in war, the biggest mistake we could make would be to "change course."

I can't deal with morons such as Baloney and Ashley--they can't even count how many burgers they put on the grill at McDonald's...

Barney,

I agree that the Bush administration is unable to make meaningful ammends for it's mistakes. But it is quite unfair to say that "the right is a made of p*ssys that can’t or wont take responsibility".

There are many, many conservatives that do not agree with our president's foreign policy. But more importantly, there are many conservatives in government who would not implement their policies with the same kind of arrogance that the Bush administration has, even if they did agree on the policies themselves.

When you think about conservatives, think more Teddy Roosevelt, and a little less Richard Nixon (or Bush, whatever).

nate, sorry for the bad link. I was just trying to be informative. I will try to find out where it went. If I can I'll post a good link.

nate, I just tried my link again and it went right to the article I was trying to send you to. I don't know why it does not work for you. Perhaps you should try again. I hope it works this time. Otherwise I don't know what to think.

Barney

If the "left" would offer constructive alternatives, they would have swept to victory in 2004 and would control all branches of government right now. What we get from the "left" is "redeploy." This is euphamism for surrender. I do not know what will happen if we withdrew now. I think it is higly likely that former regime elements and their terrorists allies would very quickly gain control of the country. This would leave us in worse shape than we were before. This hardly seems like a solution at all. If we "stay the course" democracy in Iraq might take hold. They might be allied with the US. Iraqi security forces might be able to take control. The seed of democracy might spread to the surrounding countries. In other words I am torn between a policy that might succeed and one that is very unlikely to succeed. Right now the policy being suggested by the administration seems to be the best of the two. I suggest a thrid alternative. Send more troops to Iraq to try and get the security situation under control. I want to give the Iraqis every tool possible, as long as such is consitent with American national security interests, to achieve liberty.

Right now it appears the Iraq war was inconsistent with American national security interests. In time, we will know if this will work out. Prior to the war the Democrats and the Republicans believed the same thing about Iraqi WMD. Based on this information, Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force. This is not just a Republican or Democrat issue. If we fail, we lose together. If we succeed, we all succeed.

I have serious reservations about some of our policies. Many of our policies are being conducted in concert with our allies. As such, there may be a logical explanation for some of the decisions that were made. To refer to those who disagree with you as p*ssys is a typical leftist ploy. Don't offer constructive alternatives. Just insult. To suggest that this should have been over in two years, implies that this enemy is easy to defeat. Even under ideal circumstances, it is not. The bottom line is we over estimated our own capabilities and under estiimated the capabilities of our enemies. I suggest bringing in more troops and calling on the American people to make sacrifices much like we did for World War II.

Nate

At the end of the link, instead of htlmls it should be html. That should do it.

Israeli intellegence believes the WMD were transferred to the Bekka valley in Lebanon. Many analysts within the US have alluded to the possiblitiy of Saddam's WMD being moved to Syria. The ISG concluded it was not likely but they did make note of large truck convoys going to Syria in the run up to the war and they were unable to explain what was in the convoys and they were unable to complete the investigation due to security concerns. The conventional wisdom on Saddam's WMD may be correct. I really hope it is but it is my considered opinion that this is something that needs to be investigated further. Obviously our intellegence was wrong. The WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. It is important to figure out why. The various "Bush lied" diatribes are not helpful in this regard.

I'm not sure about the NY Times but I don't think its fair to refer Fox News as a tabloid. They try to present both sides of an issue. At least this is how it seems to me. I do think you are right about the news reporting what will sell. The bottom line is violence sells. On that note, the Iraqis have made it much farther with this democracy thing than I ever thought they could. the terrorists have made it their goal to stop democracy and the former regime elements don't like it because they are unsatisfied with substantial influence. They want to have complete control, the way they did in Saddam's day. They do not seem to be able to defeat the US military. The strategy is keep the civilian blood running while media cameras role. Over time their thinking seems to be that this will weaken the will of the American people. it seems to be working. Intentionally or not the media the media is being played.

I have observed the same as you. This administration does seem to be arrogant at times. They have had to deal with some of the most vicious, over the top, attacks by some people. Such viciousness will often cause people to dig in, when a course change would be better. This is just an observation and may be wrong. Personally I think the Administration's policies on border control and spending are impeachable actions. In the mean time, I would suggest that the critics myelf included try to work constructively with the administration to bring about policy changes rather than engaging in vicious rhetoric.

b.poster, “To suggest that this should have been over in two years, implies that this enemy is easy to defeat. Even under ideal circumstances, it is not.”

No it does not. I suggest that you read Cobra II. CENTCOM Commander Gen. Zinni’s 1003-98 invasion plan called for over 400,000 troops to over-throw the governmentt, to SECURE the COUNTRY, turn over operations to a new government and withdraw after one year. Gen. Franks, when asked to cut the force levels for a quicker strike, first lowered the troop strength to 385,000 which he thought was the minimum need to secure the country. It was Rummy and Bush that insisted that the troop levels should be cut to the level necessary to remove Saddam from power. There was no thoughts in regards to securing the country.

How may have died over this predicted blunder?

b.poster, “To suggest that this should have been over in two years, implies that this enemy is easy to defeat. Even under ideal circumstances, it is not.”

No it does not. I suggest that you read Cobra II. CENTCO Commander Gen. Zinni’s 1003-98 invasion plan called for over 400,000 troops to over-throw the government and to SECURE the COUNTRY, turn over operations to a new government and withdraw after one year. Gen. Franks, when asked to cut the force levels for a quicker strike, first lowered the troop strength to 385,000 which he thought was the minimum need to secure the country. It was Rummy and Bush that insisted that the troop levels should be cut to the level necessary to remove Saddam from power. There was not thought in regards to securing the country.

How may have died over this predicted blunder?

“Also, someone try and explain to this feeble-minded moron that changing course, i.e. "redeploying," isn't an optoion (sic) that offers success.”

Really keefer? The CIA just dissolved the unit that was hunting OBL. Would you call that a “change of course” that will lead to success?

Or as I saw on a T-shirt:
I killed Americans on 9/11 and all I got was, away with it.

Lick Lick

Go get'em Israel!!

OhioOrrin, I like your ideas, but I think Israel should take the lead since our military is already engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. America can provide support/supplies and political cover.

Keep, your link works. My cutting-and-pasting skills are now in question.

And BTW, thanks Barney for that last post. It is good for us to be reminded that the Bush administration has REPEATEDLY acted in many ways contradictory to the best advice of our miliary and intelligence communities.

With regards to Keep's link, this is that story that came out a couple of weeks ago, and is currently getting senators Santorum and Hoekstra a jolly round of laughter. Everyone should look this up for themselves, but the gist of the story is this:

The munitions that Santorum claims are the WMDs that we were looking for were found one by one and in small caches around Iraq over the last three years. These munitions are VERY old; they all pre-date the first gulf war, and are probably relics of Iraq's war with Iran. They are still kind of toxic as far as chemicals go, but WMDs they are not. David Kay, who was the chief U.S. weapons hunter in Iraq during the war, told the AP, "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point."

A good way to tell that this is not the stuff that Bush had wanted to find in Iraq, is that the White House has been dead silent on this, and the DOD has declined to support Santorum and Hoekstra's statements. Even Don Rumsfeld declined to use the old munitions as justification for the administration's policies, and instead mumbled this characteristically confusing and vague comment:

"They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found."

Yes, apparently that's all he said about it. Gotta love that Rumsfeld.

Anyway, I feel obligated to point out that everyone already KNEW that Iraq had some leftover mustard and nerve gas from their war with Iran. We knew this because WE HELPED THEM develop their chemical weapons systems. We accepted Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran, and the American public only really started to pay attention when Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, and then we were saying, "oh sh*t, what have we done!?"

I also feel obligated to point out what a hack Santorum is. Google for "santirum accuweather" for something that will make you angry (hopefully).

Keep It To The Right, thanks again for the link. I think that this discussion is very important.

B.Poster,

I too heard some small mention of those mysterious convoys to Syria before the war, thanks for reminding me. Very suspicious, I must say. I would not be surprised at all if Syria is now the proud owner of Iraq's bio/chem warfare program.

*but*

There is precious little evidence to support or refute this theory. At least that we the public know of.

And regarding Fox News, I will concede that there have been stories covered objectively on Fox, but for every one of those, I can point to a story that was twisted into straight propaganda. A good example is the story that Keep and I just brought up, on Rick Santorum's new WMD discovery. Without even waiting for a response from the DOD or the White House, Fox News had plastered its web site with the headline "WMDs Found", or something like that. Then Bill O'Reilly parrots Santorum's line on his show, and tries to argue about it with Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton! Now that's tabloid.

I don't remember if Geraldo had anything to say about it or not.

Mind you, I understand that CNN and all of the networks use pretty much the same antics to sell airtime. Fox News is, however, just a tad more hollywood about it than the rest.

Because the LAST thing the Leftist-Media Complex needs or could tolerate would be actual information distributed openly to all. The LMC has succeeded in the past only because of its complete monopoly on all "news" media----radio, television, and the print press. by: Almiranta

Great post, Almiranta! I totally agree. The MSM or LCM (sounds accurate to me) does nothing to educate the public about why Islamic terrorists in Iraq deliberately target Iraqi civilians. The MSM/LCM simply labels it "sectarian" violence. There is almost no attempt to educate the public as to the historical basis in Islamic history for this "sectarian" violence between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims. So why does a Sunni Islamic terrorist blow himself up in a crowded Shiite marketplace? Well, it all started back in AD 680.

LAtimes.com: "Shiites and Sunnis -- centuries of strife"

"But sectarian strife is nothing new in Islamic history, and battles between Shiites and Sunnis have erupted periodically since Hussein challenged the Umayyad claim to the caliphate and raised the banner of revolt in AD 680. In the late 13th century, for instance, the Sunni Mamluks of Egypt were as anxious about Shiite expansion as that of the Crusaders, who were still in the coastal and northern parts of Syria. They sent expeditions to check the spread of Shiism in the mountain region of Kisrawan, which overlooks the coastal area north of Beirut. The Mamluk expeditions, sanctioned by the respected Sunni jurist Ibn Taymiya, forced Shiites in Kisrawan to conceal their identity during the 14th century."

[..] In Saudi Arabia, the religious-ideological divide has played a decisive role in shaping relations between the Saud ruling family, backed by the state's clerical establishment, and the Shiite minority concentrated mainly in the Hasa region, site of the country's oil. The rulers' adoption of Wahhabi-Hanbali Islam as the state's religious ideology has meant an inferior status for Shiites, whom the Wahhabis view as infidels. Shiites regard themselves as second- and even third-class citizens within the kingdom."
****

Many Sunni Muslims around the world view Shiite Muslims as "infidels". Here's a couple more media reports which evidence this:

Trudy Rubin-The Philadelphia Inquirer
"Iraqis will dictate when U.S. will exit"

But fear and mistrust divide the two communities. Some Sunnis regard Shiite Muslims – who believe in a different line of succession to the Prophet Muhammad – as infidels. The language used by some educated Sunnis to refer to Shiites sounds like 1950s Ku Klux Klanners talking about blacks.
***

JihadWatch.org
MULTAN, Pakistan (AP) -- "Two bombs planted in a car and motorcycle exploded at a gathering of Sunni Muslim radicals in central Pakistan before dawn Thursday, killing at least 39 people and wounding about 100 others. Police suspected it was a sectarian attack.

About 2,000 angry Sunnis gathered outside a hospital where victims of the explosions in the city of Multan were taken, shouting "Shiites are infidels!" and slogans against the government, witnesses said."
***

Barney

It seems clear to everyone by now, at least it seems clear to me, that we should have used more troops in the Iraq operation. I think it is still time to change this situation. We do not know for sure that had more troops been used that this would have made a difference. This a very powerful enemy who can and does adapt. For all we know, things might have turned out even worse. I suspect the troop levels may have been determined in concert with our "allies" in the region. They may have been uncomfortable allowing a larger number of troops to base in their territory prior to the invasion. That being said, I think more troops would have made a huge difference regarding the success of the mission but to assume that we "know" that a differnet strategy would have worked better is to fall into the same type of hubris the administration is often accused of. To accuse the administration of hubris does not seem to be unfounded. They do seem to have ignored the advice of military and intellegence personnel. I don't know why more troops were not used. I'm frustrated that someone has not been held accountable yet. Leaders should be judged by what they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish. Iraq has an elected soverign government now but we seem unable to get security under control. We should change course. Someone, probably Donal Rumsfeld should be held to account and fired. He probably should have been fired long ago. You ask how many have died over the predicted blunder? Is hard to say. For all I know had we employed a different strategy more people may have died. I suspect had we used more troops at the start, more Iraqis and more coalition forces would have died at the begining than died at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom but the country would likely be secure now. I still don't think we have enough troops there now. I think there is still time to correct this. I suggest committing more troops to the operation to try and bring the security situation under control. I want to provide the Iraqis with all the tools that we can, consistent with American national security interests, to achieve liberty.

With all due respect, redeploying outside of Iraq does not seemt hat it would be very likely to work. The former regime elements and the terrorist allies would likely gain control of the country. In other words, the democratically elected government would probably be over thrown. The worthy goals of achieving a stable democratic Iraq who is allied with the US would likely be lost. I can't say for certain of course.

Most of the leaders of Al Qaeda are either dead or in custody. The al qaeda group that existed on 9/10/01 operates primarily in Iraq. The terrorists who carried out the attacks in Spain and Britian, as well as the terrorists who tried to attack Canada seem to be cells that were only loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda. In other words, the structure of Al Qaeda seems to have changed. This may explain why the OBL unit was disbanded. Everyone would love to get OBL but this cannot be done at the expense of American national security. If he is where conventional wisdom says he is, running from cave to cave and hiding along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border and making tapes then he is neutralized. I'm more interested in American national security than in one man. The war against Islamic Extremists terrorism is much bigger than OBL. That being said, I want to get this guy, as I'm sure everyone does. No successful attacks on American soil as I'm writing this and no world wide caliphate either. OBL has not exactly been overly succesful in achieveing his goals against the US yet either. No successful attacks on American soil is quite and accomplishment. I salute the people whose job is defense of the homeland!! The "change of course" seems to be absorbing the OBL unit into the broader CIA. Whether or not this will be successful is not known at this time. Again, we succeed together or we fail together. It is of the utmost importance to work together to find solutions. Again, my suggestion is more of a committment to Iraq and to ask the American people to make sacrifices to ensure the success of the mission.

"Much as I would like us to join any Israel attack on Syria..."

Wow, you're just champing at the bit, aren't you? Down, boy! Remember what your good book says, what is it, "Blessed are the cheesemakers"?

That's peacemakers. Peace, not cheese.

Really keefer? The CIA just dissolved the unit that was hunting OBL. Would you call that a “change of course” that will lead to success?

No, you blithering moron, dissolving a unit at CIA hardly relates to withdrawing the troops. You're too stupid to understand the intel community, so I won't bother explaining it to you. Maybe Retired Spook is better at suffering fools than I.

If any of you idiots think "redeployment" means sending the troops to Germany, over the horizon, or, in Jackass Murtha's case, Okinawa, you're morons too. When your Donk leaders say "redeployment," they mean redeploy the troops back to the States, and go ahead and try to send them back to Iraq.

Idiots...

Barneyg2000

RE: "Really keefer? The CIA just dissolved the unit that was hunting OBL. Would you call that a 'change of course' that will lead to success?"

I would! We change to meet changing realities!

From ABC News (Reuters):

"... transferred its duties to broader operations that track Islamist militant groups ..."

"The bin Laden unit ... became less valuable as a separate operation as counterterrorism operations eliminated top al Qaeda operatives and the movement's focus shifted more to regional networks of militants ..."

"Al Qaeda is no longer the hierarchical organization that it was before 9-11. Three-quarters of its senior leaders have been killed or captured ..."

"... the ending of the bin Laden unit as a 'reallocation of resources' within the CIA's Counterterrorism Center ... the spy agency still has staff devoted full time to the tracking and analysis of intelligence related to bin Laden and other senior al Qaeda leaders."

"The bin Laden effort has been absorbed into a larger effort. It's now one part of an effort that looks at all of these jihadist organizations ..."

AAR

Keefer,

Notice how Barney is not calling you names? Notice how he seems to be arguing calmly, and you throw a sh*t-parade every time he posts?

Honestly, you're not doing much to contribute to this discussion.

Keefer,
Dont listen to Nate. Just because Barney likes to make long posts with lots of words does not mean he is saying anything.

As for "redeployment", it strikes me as "appeasement" did Churchill pre WWII, rather foolish and useless. Any form of appeasement just encourages the Hitlers, Husseins, and Chavez's of the world.