MikeAdamson:

Some of us critics of the current policy of military engagement focused primarily in Iraq believe that the slog will be that much longer and harder because of the very policy. If more jihadists are created than are killed then the policy won’t work

What’s your alternative, Mike? Let Saddam keep training his force of 50,000 Fedayeen Jerusalem, let al Zarqawi continue to operate unfettered out of Iraq (and supported materially and financially by Saddam)?

For once, I wish you would spell out what you think would be a better choice. Continued sanctions? More UN resolutions?

Bush’s solution is a long hard slog, but it’s guaranteed to succeed, unless sabotaged by partisan-inspired opposition at home.

WIll, most of the post-war planning was done by the State Department & the CIA, not the Pentagon. It is an unfortunate fact of history that Rumsfeld managed to gain control of the post-war administration, after having refused to consider it a real possibility. In the process, he tossed out all of the planning that had been done, and basically ad hoc’d it from there.

As far as not taking out Zarqawi, I can’t say I’m much impressed with your argument. We were approaching a war time situation, where the strategic alignment of the nations entering the war mattered more than tactical questions like a strike on Zarqawi. Going alone in Iraq had a much higher chance of failure than whether there was one more or one less terrorist.

In retrospect, I agree that we underestimated the importance of Zarqawi. These are questions best left for history. They have no impact on our current or future planning. We’re in Iraq now, Zarqawi is dead, the issue is moot, unless you really want to get into game of finger pointing.

Nothing that has not been said already, ad nauseam.

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;

The “war on terror” has disrupted al-Qa’ida. That’s good news. I applaud, for example, the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, like many people, I make a distinction between the “war on terror” and the Iraq War. The Iraq War had done tremendous damage by providing fodder for anti-American jihadists around the world, by creating a “cause celebre”:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

This statement is even more disturbing when you consider that for many jihadists, martyrdom is success. The seeds of the jihad “cause celebre” can be found in places like this:

“The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”

Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.

Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.

“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

Good column in the Washington Post this morning…how do we help Iraq not become a failed state? Given that the course can not be stayed in Iraq nor can a simple American withdrawl take place…what form should Iraq take in order to maximise stability and minimise jihadism and what do we do to help that process along?

… another critical mistake that helped give the jihadists a foothold in Iraq.

Will,

Surely you aren’t going to defend the notion that “the jihadists” had no “foothold” in Iraq prior to the US led invasion and the overthrow of Saddam. There are perfectly irrational leftwing moonbats that know better than that. Even Democrats.

Zarqawi should have been taken out back in 2002, when the US Military had a bead on him (WSJ, October 25, 2004) :

Gen. Keane characterized the camp “as one of the best targets we ever had,” and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

Or see this:

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Bush put promoting the Iraq War ahead of actually fighting the war on terror. This was another critical mistake that helped give the jihadists a foothold in Iraq.

Mike, the people it isn’t going quickly enough for are the critics of the foreign policy that has us fighting there in the first place. The rest of us knew all along that it was going to be a long, hard slog.

Some of us critics of the current policy of military engagement focused primarily in Iraq believe that the slog will be that much longer and harder because of the very policy. If more jihadists are created than are killed then the policy won’t work.

Bush thrice declined Pentagon requests for permission to take out Zarqawi, an important terrorist operative.

Will,

When someone asks “Exactly where is your reference…” that is a request for an authoritative citation documenting what you allege. It is not a invitation for you to repeat your allegation in more detail.

The source for your contention that Mr. Bush declined on three separate occasions to accede to Pentagon requests to take out Zarqawi would be very much appreciated. I was not aware that this was the case, either.

When someone asks “Exactly where is your reference…” that is a request for an authoritative citation documenting what you allege. It is not a invitation for you to repeat your allegation in more detail.

The references to WSJ and MSNBC were in my original Zarqawi post, but since so many people seem to have missed it, I’ll repost:

Zarqawi should have been taken out back in 2002, when the US Military had a bead on him (WSJ, October 25, 2004) :

Gen. Keane characterized the camp “as one of the best targets we ever had,” and questioned the decision not to attack it. When the U.S. did strike the camp a day after the war started, Mr. Zarqawi, many of his followers and Kurdish extremists belonging to his organization already had fled, people involved with intelligence say.

Or see this:

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Bush put promoting the Iraq War ahead of actually fighting the war on terror. This was another critical mistake that helped give the jihadists [aka the "current Iraq jihad"] a foothold in Iraq.

[The first mistake I had cited was Rumsfeld's refusal to plan for the occupation.]

[The WSJ citation is the best I can do without a subscription to the WSJ. I did read actual printed issue of the WSJ and I can vouch for the fact that the article is legit.]

If more jihadists are created than are killed then the policy won’t work.

Wrong conclusion. It means that we have to kill them faster and in larger quantities, which means drawing them together in one place. Duh!

perhaps not quickly enough for the trigger happy among us but anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Mike, the people it isn’t going quickly enough for are the critics of the foreign policy that has us fighting there in the first place. The rest of us knew all along that it was going to be a long, hard slog.

But spreading democracy to the middle east is ultimately the best policy. We’re playing the long game here, not the short game. The war we’re fighting now may be good fodder for recruiting terrorists now, but in the long run it’s what it will take to win. They aren’t backing down.