Home Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

We’re Winning In Iraq, Pt. 2

From The Chicago Tribune:

Jihadis turn from Iraq to Afghanistan
Western forces offer more inviting targets

PARIS—The conflict in Iraq is drawing fewer foreign fighters as Muslim extremists aspiring to battle the West turn their attention back to the symbolically important and increasingly violent turf of Afghanistan, European and U.S. anti-terror officials say.

The shift of jihadis to Afghanistan this year suggests that Al Qaeda and its allies, armed with new tactics honed in Iraq, are coming full circle five years after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban mullahs

Until Sept. 11, 2001, Afghanistan was the land of jihad, hallowed ground where fighters from across the Muslim world helped vanquish the Soviet Union in the 1980s, fought alongside the Taliban in the 1990s and filled terror training camps overseen by Osama bin Laden. Loss of the Afghan sanctuary scattered the networks and sent bin Laden fleeing toward the Pakistani border region, where many anti-terror officials believe he remains.

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, jihadis from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa and Europe flocked to confront the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. Although foreigners have been a minority in the Iraqi insurgency, militants such as Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi played a major role in spectacular suicide attacks and kidnap-murders.

But insurgent leaders in Iraq are now mainly interested in foreign recruits ready to die in suicide attacks, anti-terror officials say. Moreover, the conflict is dominated by sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. In contrast, an accelerating Afghan offensive by the resurgent Taliban offers a clearer battleground and a wealth of targets: U.S. and other NATO troops and the Western-backed government.

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency, the movement of foreign jihadis to Iraq has “significantly declined in recent months,” said Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of the DST, France’s lead counterterror agency.

“There is less need for them in Iraq because there’s a need above all for kamikazes, and there are not an infinite number of volunteers,” said Bousquet, whose agency works closely with U.S., European and Arab counterparts. “The Iraqi insurgency is now very well organized around Iraqis. Those who want to fight, but not necessarily to die as martyrs, go elsewhere.”

[...]

A leap in violence in Afghanistan this year has featured tactics such as suicide and roadside bombings that are trademarks of the insurgency in Iraq, according to Bousquet and other officials. Despite decades of warfare, suicide bombings were rare in Afghanistan. But the number of such attacks has shot up from 6 in 2004 to at least 78 so far this year.

[...]

Foreign fighters are predominantly Sunni. But they increasingly prefer fighting alongside the Taliban to getting embroiled in the Sunni-versus-Shiite bloodshed in Iraq, said Caprioli, who still works closely with the intelligence community as an executive of the Paris-based GEOS security firm.

Read the whole thing.

We are winning; they are cutting and running.  What we are doing in Iraq is working, and we have to continue the fight until we are victorious.

Comments

Avatar for gregdn

Foreign fighters never constituted much of the problem in Iraq.  Most are home grown.

gregdn on October 25, 2006 at 07:25 am

So when the last foreign jihadist has left Iraq then can victory be declared in Iraq? It really sounds to me like the domestic insurgents feel they don’t need the foreign help/fodder any more so I’m not sure I would call this a winning situation.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 07:27 am

Foreign fighters never constituted much of the problem in Iraq.  Most are home grown.

Source?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 25, 2006 at 07:38 am

gregdn:

Although foreigners have been a minority in the Iraqi insurgency, militants such as Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi played a major role in spectacular suicide attacks and kidnap-murders.

You only told half the truth, didn’t you?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 07:53 am

MikeA: A common leftie argument is that if something isn’t perfect, it’s a total failure.  I reject that sort of thinking, since it is a recipe for failure.  It’s is also the coward’s way of excusing inaction or the failure to do the right thing.

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency, the movement of foreign jihadis to Iraq has “significantly declined in recent months,”

Doesn’t exactly agree with your assessment, does it?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 07:57 am

gregdn,

~20% of the enemy KIA have been identified as foreigners.

Out Here
Rodney Graves


Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney Graves on October 25, 2006 at 08:09 am
Avatar for gregdn

Rodney say %20 are foreign and I’ll accept that.  Their leaving the battlefield is welcome news, but hardly grounds to say we’re winning.  Somebody is still killing our troops at a pretty good clip.

gregdn on October 25, 2006 at 08:23 am

gregdn:

Foreign fighters are predominantly Sunni. But they increasingly prefer fighting alongside the Taliban to getting embroiled in the Sunni-versus-Shiite bloodshed in Iraq…

Did you miss that part?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 08:28 am

Doesn’t exactly agree with your assessment, does it?

Of course it does...I don’t see what you’re getting at?

A common leftie argument is that if something isn’t perfect, it’s a total failure.

That is not a strictly leftie trait of course.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 08:30 am

MikeA: What you wrote: 

It really sounds to me like the domestic insurgents feel they don’t need the foreign help/fodder any more so I’m not sure I would call this a winning situation.

The article said:

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency, the movement of foreign jihadis to Iraq has “significantly declined in recent months,”

The decline is due to our success in building up and supporting the govt of Iraq, which was one of our goals, which equals success.  What part of that don’t you understand?  It doesn’t agree with your argument at all.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 08:36 am

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency…

That doesn’t mean that the Iraqi government has brought the insurgency under control...it means that the insurgency is now under the control of Iraqi insurgents rather than foreign jihadists. The foreigners played a useful role but they’re now wanted only for suicide missions in Iraq which is why they’d rather go fight in Afghanistan. Got it?


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 08:41 am
Avatar for gregdn

"building up and supporting the govt of Iraq”

Robert, I think the Iraqi Gov’t is part of the problem.  Did you see what Maliki said following our raid on Sadr City yesterday?

gregdn on October 25, 2006 at 08:42 am

That doesn’t mean that the Iraqi government has brought the insurgency under control...it means that the insurgency is now under the control of Iraqi insurgents rather than foreign jihadists. The foreigners played a useful role but they’re now wanted only for suicide missions in Iraq which is why they’d rather go fight in Afghanistan. Got it?

Foreign fighters are predominantly Sunni. But they increasingly prefer fighting alongside the Taliban to getting embroiled in the Sunni-versus-Shiite bloodshed in Iraq…

The domestic terrorists are leaving, as well.  Got it?  That doesn’t agree with your scenario at all.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 08:46 am

That doesn’t mean that the Iraqi government has brought the insurgency under control.

I never said that it has; the title is “Winning”, not “Has won”.  It’s in process, and it isn’t a stalemate, either.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 08:51 am

The domestic terrorists are leaving, as well.  Got it?

Nope because the article you quote says no such thing. I understand your point about my use of “control” but other than that your interpretation of the article is completely wrong. The foreign jihadists would rather fight along side the Taliban against the Afghani govt and the NATO forces than fight in the Iraqi sectarian battle. That’s what the article says.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 09:05 am

Exactly.  They would rather fight in Afghanistan because they are losing in Iraq.  Duh.
Of course, I’m not sympathetic to the terrorists, so I don’t interpret events in the best way possible for them.  They are cutting and running from Iraq.  If the domestic terrorists were winning, wouldn’t they want to stay?  After all, it’s their home, isn’t it?  Don’t they treasure their own territory?


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 09:09 am

gregdn opines:

...say %20 are foreign and I’ll accept that.  Their leaving the battlefield is welcome news, but hardly grounds to say we’re winning.  Somebody is still killing our troops at a pretty good clip.

Taking the points one at a time:

20% of the KIA means the foreign fighters were a significant portion of the terrorist problem in Iraq.

Their leaving changes the nature of the insurgency, on both a tactical and operational level.  Not mentioned in the article is that the Sunni tribes in the main operating area of the foreigh Jihadi’s have banded together and have been turning over these foreign cells to the government.  We thus see that the foreign Jihadi are following the murtha methodology, a sure sign of a loss of will.

Our troops are indeed being killed at a greater rate.  The enemy is not ignorant of the impending elections here, nor of the weaknesses of those stuck on 1968.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
.


Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney Graves on October 25, 2006 at 09:17 am

They would rather fight in Afghanistan because they are losing in Iraq.

You’re free to interpret the facts as you see fit but the article doesn’t support your argument.

From the article

The conflict in Iraq is drawing fewer foreign fighters…

The shift of jihadis to Afghanistan this year suggests that Al Qaeda and its allies, armed with new tactics honed in Iraq, are coming full circle five years after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban mullahs

After the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, jihadis from the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa and Europe flocked to confront the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

But insurgent leaders in Iraq are now mainly interested in foreign recruits ready to die in suicide attacks, anti-terror officials say.

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency, the movement of foreign jihadis to Iraq has “significantly declined in recent months,” said Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of the DST, France’s lead counterterror agency.

“There is less need for them in Iraq because there’s a need above all for kamikazes, and there are not an infinite number of volunteers,” said Bousquet, whose agency works closely with U.S., European and Arab counterparts. “The Iraqi insurgency is now very well organized around Iraqis. Those who want to fight, but not necessarily to die as martyrs, go elsewhere.”

Foreign fighters are predominantly Sunni. But they increasingly prefer fighting alongside the Taliban to getting embroiled in the Sunni-versus-Shiite bloodshed in Iraq…

The article says nothing about Iraqis going to fight in Afghanistan. The article suggests two primary reasons why the foreign jihadist would rather fight in Afghanistan than in Iraq. This is not evidence that America is winning at all.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 09:20 am
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

The Taliban are benefitting from the deal they struck with Pakistan.  I recently watched a report on Fox News, I which they interviewed a Taliban leader explaining how they are using tactics they’ve seen and learned in watching what the insurgents in Iraq are doing.  ..how some of those tactics have become their greatest “God given” weapons.  ..and some U.S military official concuring in that they’ve seen some of the same tactics been used to great effect by the Taliban.

..I wouldn’t define that been good for our side:

U.S. military officials tell ABC News cross-border attacks by the Taliban are up “300 percent” since President Musharraf declared a “truce” with tribal leaders in the troubled Northern Waziristan region that borders Afghanistan

..

Reports from the district capital Miram Shah say Taliban vigilantes now patrol the streets, while Pakistani government officials and the military are all but absent.

There getting so bold they’re even comtemplating their own tax within Paskistan to fund their adventures in Afghanistan:

Although the peace deal with Islamabad specifically forbade the Pakistani tribesmen from forming a parallel government, Taliban rulers in the region have issued a strict legal code, even announcing plans to begin taxing vehicles that pass through their district.

aNONOMISLY on October 25, 2006 at 09:46 am
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

..I agree with MA, ..its not that we’re winning in Iraq, ..its that terrorists are transferring their tried in Iraq trades to Afghanistan and making the situation there even worst than it was just a year ago.

aNONOMISLY on October 25, 2006 at 09:49 am
Avatar for gregdn

"Our troops are indeed being killed at a greater rate.  The enemy is not ignorant of the impending elections here, nor of the weaknesses of those stuck on 1968.”

Rodney are you saying that the insurgents decided to start killing our troops at a greater rate because of the elections?  That begs the question as to why they haven’t done it all along if they have the capability.

gregdn on October 25, 2006 at 09:53 am

The convoluted spinning of those who advocate for terrorist victory in Iraq is funny; the terrorists are leaving, so they must be winning.  I don’t think so.  Nice try, though.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 11:34 am

r108...you blinked so I win. You know that I’m not advocating a terrorist victory in Iraq but the big difference between you and me is that I freely admit when I make a mistake. Time to move on I suppose unless you have anything substantive to add.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 25, 2006 at 03:36 pm

No blinking involved; you interpret things in light of your values, and I do the same for mine.  They are cutting and running from Iraq, not a sign of victory for them.(I repeat)


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 03:53 pm

Not unusual for a leftie, though.  A “win” for you is about the US losing to the terrorists.  You seem to value that more than anything else.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 03:56 pm
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

They are cutting and running from Iraq, not a sign of victory for them.

the terrorists in Iraq aren’t leaving. What’s happening is that potential foreign jihadist outside Iraq believe the “locals” in Iraq already have that conflict under control. They are going to Afghanistan instead, where they feel they are more needed, ..

As Iraqis have solidified control of their insurgency, the movement of foreign jihadis to Iraq has “significantly declined in recent months,” said Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, director of the DST, France’s lead counterterror agency.

“There is less need for them in Iraq because there’s a need above all for kamikazes, and there are not an infinite number of volunteers,”

aNONOMISLY on October 25, 2006 at 04:04 pm

Spin it any way you like; they aren’t winning; it’s not even a “stalemate”.  They are probably hoping for a Dem victory in the elections, so we will cut and run.  They are hoping, so I suggest we smash their hopes with a sweeping Republican victory, especially an obstruction-proof majority in the Senate.  That will really get them leaving Iraq, so we can kill them in Afghanistan.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 04:33 pm

...so I suggest we smash their hopes with a sweeping Republican victory, especially an obstruction-proof majority in the Senate

.

And just how is that looking so far, big boy?


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on October 25, 2006 at 04:45 pm
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

rbb, its the MSM fault that it aint looking good!

aNONOMISLY on October 25, 2006 at 04:51 pm

rbb: The future of our freedom depends on it, so it had better look good to anyone who loves America.

If the MSM told the whole truth, it would not only look a lot better, the voters would know it!  That is why they(the MSM) lie.  Duh.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 04:58 pm

Something something something about the Generals on the ground…

Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, agrees that Democratic control of Congress could be the best way to wrest control from the Bush administration and steer the United States away from a gravely flawed strategy in Iraq. “The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around,” Eaton explained, adding that such sentiment is growing among retired and active-duty military leaders. “Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power,” he said. He also noted, “You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I’m not at all thrilled with who I did vote for.”


“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

realitybasedbob on October 25, 2006 at 05:18 pm

A small minority of retired generals, you mean.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 25, 2006 at 05:38 pm

r108...when I call Iraq a stalemate I mean that neither side has the upper hand. Simply because I don’t subscribe to your laughable interpretation of the article you posted doesn’t mean I think the terrorists are winning but then you already know that. Simply because I don’t share your histrionic analysis of the jihadist threat doesn’t mean I want them to win.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 02:18 am

I received an article from Stratfor this morning which was thought provoking as always. I’m not supposed to post them online so I’ll just give you the summary:

Iraq: A Sunni Shift Against the Jihad
Summary

Sunni nationalists in Iraq who recently expressed an interest in negotiating a settlement with the United States want Washington to eject transnational Islamist militants from their midst. Though mainstream Sunni elements have been exploiting jihadist activity for years, they now face a threat from the jihadists, who could try to fill a leadership vacuum as crucial negotiations with the Shia and the Kurds approach and as pressure intensifies for the Bush administration to pull troops out of Iraq. The Sunni shift against the jihadists might seem like a positive development, but given the sectarian and political complexities in the country, such a move will only lead to more violence and instability.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 04:20 am
Avatar for FlyOnTheWall

About a year ago Bin Laden put out a video explaining the importance of Iraq and how they couldn’t lose it.  I took him at his word.  I think they’re cutting and running and now we’ve got an actual insurgency in Iraq to deal with, hopefully that will be handled politically.  Fighters leaving Iraq is good, fewer fighters in Iraq.  (Redundant or just making important points multiple times?)

I am further predicting some all out war in Afghanistan.  We’ll see how that goes.

FlyOnTheWall on October 26, 2006 at 06:22 am

MikeA: I always marvel at those who seem to need to turn good news into bad, which is the opposite of “look for the silver lining”.  I am in the “silver lining” school, myself.  I thought Reagan standing up to the Soviets was the right thing to do, when all the lefties were hunkered down in fear, absolutely sure that he would start WWIII; look how that turned out.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 06:29 am

r108...when I call Iraq a stalemate I mean that neither side has the upper hand. Simply because I don’t subscribe to your laughable interpretation of the article you posted doesn’t mean I think the terrorists are winning but then you already know that. Simply because I don’t share your histrionic analysis of the jihadist threat doesn’t mean I want them to win.

If, as you say, it is a stalemate, then either side might win, right?  Since you consistently take the side that the terrorists will win, you support that position.  If you supported our defeating the terrorists, you would take our side, right?  You can’t have it both ways.  Your feeble attempts at personal attack are laughable.  I don’t agree with you; I want us to win, and am of the opinion that we are, even with a “skeleton crew”.  I am aware of the reason for this, even though I don’t agree with it, and am aware of why we hold back a lot of our weaponry.  If we had the full support for victory from both political parties in this country, we would have already been victorious and would have lost fewer soldiers, IMO.  It’s just sad that your side is using the war for political gain.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 06:42 am

r108 said

Since you consistently take the side that the terrorists will win, you support that position.

Not only do I not take that side consistently, I don’t believe I have ever thought or said that the terrorists will win.

If you supported our defeating the terrorists, you would take our side, right?  You can’t have it both ways.

I realise now what is causing our communication problems. You say that if I don’t agree with your strategy for defeating the terrorists then I don’t support defeating the terrorists and I must support the terrorists. I disagree with you of course but it’s hard to argue against one’s dogma and faith so I’ll let it go.

Your feeble attempts at personal attack are laughable.

Good...I did intend them to be taken as playful pokes in the ribs.

If we had the full support for victory from both political parties in this country, we would have already been victorious and would have lost fewer soldiers, IMO.  It’s just sad that your side is using the war for political gain.

Is that because Democrats and the media are better at counter-insurgency? I would argue that the entire Iraqi operation emerged from a peculiar and partisan misreading of the history and of the current situation in the Middle East but I’m sure we can knock heads on that again on another thread.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 07:26 am

MikeA: Unlike most human activities, war is dialectical; you either win or lose.  You might cite Korea as an example of that not being true, but recent events would illustrate that when we allowed the UN to keep it a stalemate, we lost.  It’s not true that I think you have to agree with “my strategy” for defeating the terrorists; I would like it if you agreed with any strategy for defeating the terrorists; understand?

The combination of the Dems and the MSM has effectively disenfranchised the American public from getting the full benefit of the Administration they elected.  That is regrettable for many reasons, some of which I have already enumerated.  We all suffer for it.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 07:33 am
Avatar for aNONOMISLY

About a year ago Bin Laden put out a video explaining the importance of Iraq and how they couldn’t lose it.  I took him at his word.  I think they’re cutting and running and now we’ve got an actual insurgency in Iraq to deal with, hopefully that will be handled politically.  Fighters leaving Iraq is good, fewer fighters in Iraq.  (Redundant or just making important points multiple times?)

The article isn’t about foreign jihadist within Iraq leaving (i.e. cutting and running) out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.  Potential jihadist OUTSIDE of Iraq feel that the locals (i.e. Sunni Insurgents, and Shiite Militias to some extent) already have that country under control (i.e. favorably close to anarchy I guess is what they like) and so they think that they aren’t really needed there. ..They are going to Afghanistan istead. ..the article seems to also point out that the locals aren’t asking for jihadist and the only foreign jihadist recruit they seem to want is the ones committed to the sole purpose of becoming suicide bombers.

aNONOMISLY on October 26, 2006 at 09:32 am

I would like it if you agreed with any strategy for defeating the terrorists; understand?

I do...it’s just that I favour dealing with terrorism using intelligence and police work and working to elimate or ameliorate the root causes of the jihadist threat whereas you would rather invade countries, roll back centuries old individual rights with no watchdog or safeguards in place and wail about Islamic plots to take over the world. Your strategy is much more exciting and makes you feel like you’re doing something whereas mine is rather mundane and gives me hope that eventually the scourge will be neutralised since, in the end, it is hearts and minds that have to be changed.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 09:32 am

aNON: Nice try at spin, but no.

MikeA: There is a very good reason why wars are not fought by police; they are not the ones for the job.  Could “police work” have prevented 9/11?  My best and most compact way of expressing it is to point out that arresting, trying and imprisoning the Japanese carrier pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor(assuming the police had been capable of doing so) would have had no effect at all on winning WWII in the Pacific theater.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 11:00 am

MikeAdamson opines:

...I favour dealing with terrorism using intelligence and police work and working to elimate or ameliorate the root causes of the jihadist threat…

That was the policy for more than 20 years, during which time there was an ever escalation number and scope of attacks against the United States and the interests of the United States.  Since one of the working definitions of insanity is recreating the same conditions hopping for a different outcome, this polity of yours is insane.

...whereas you would rather invade countries,

Yep.  More precisely, we make war upon the terrorists.  In order to maintain neutrality, nation states are obligated under the costomary laws of warfare to prevent the terrorists from operating from within their territories.  Failure to do so leaves us the option of making war on them where we find them, and leaves the places where we find them the option of making war upon the United States in return. 

Anyplace the terrorists hide, anyplace that supports them materially, is just another battlefield. 

...roll back centuries old individual rights with no watchdog or safeguards in place…

Rubbish.  Point to a single case of abuse.  Then convince the 59% of the population who hold that the current measures are about right, or not intrusive enough, that they are mistaken.

and wail about Islamic plots to take over the world.

The world wishes now that more had wailed about the National Socialist plots in the 1920’s and early 30’s.

Your strategy is much more exciting and makes you feel like you’re doing something whereas mine is rather mundane and gives me hope that eventually the scourge will be neutralised since, in the end, it is hearts and minds that have to be changed.

Our strategy has demonstrated the first ever reduction in the rate and scale of terrorist attacks against our population.

QED

Out Here
Rodney Graves


Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney Graves on October 26, 2006 at 11:30 am

MikeA:

...roll back centuries old individual rights with no watchdog or safeguards in place…

Are you really trying to sell the idea that Iraqis had any “individual rights” under Saddam?  That’s funny!


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 11:48 am

RG...a decent rebuttal but I’m not sure what policy you believe has addressed the root causes of terrorism in the Middle East. I’ve seen the West turn a blind eye to certain regimes which serve our interests while going after those which, while bad actors, have relatively little to do with supporting terrorism. As for the increase in unchecked powers that your President now enjoys, so long as you’re prepared to have faith in his judgement then there may not be any problems but I prefer a system where one man does not wield such power. You finish with

Our strategy has demonstrated the first ever reduction in the rate and scale of terrorist attacks against our population.

An interesting thought but essentially meaningless given the short time frame being measured. Thanks for your comments though.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 12:26 pm

r108...what’s even funnier is that I’m talking about your country where the Chief Executive now wields more unchecked power than before. You’re happy that it’s Bush but if a Democrat wins next time I’m sure you’ll be with me. As for your Japan example, I might agree with you if America went after the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack as they did the perpetrators of the Pearl harbour attack but since this was not the case then I’m not sure it’s applicable.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 12:33 pm

r108...BTW have you read the article you posted originally to see where you’ve gone wrong? Just wondering.


No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeAdamson on October 26, 2006 at 12:34 pm

MikeA: Thanks for sharing the current leftie meme about the President’s “unchecked power”, but have already heard it on the extreme leftie blogs.  It just isn’t true, but that doesn’t stop the lefties.  Wasn’t there a Supreme Court decision just recently that limited the President’s wartime powers?  This too will pass.  Clinton was famous for his Executive Orders, which bypass the rest of govt, so you have it wrong, as usual.  Ultimately, the fundamental character of the President is our only hope, and George Bush is very good on that one, in contrast with the guy before him.

If the Japanese had run off and hid in some remote mountains, you might have a parallel there, but that isn’t what happened, was it?  They stood and fought us, instead of running away like a bunch of cowards.  We not only have to fight the terrorists, but we have to find them, as well.  Different tactics, same war.

As far as the article is concerned, you have convinced me that you will see it through your own values and principles, as do I.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 26, 2006 at 01:19 pm

MikeAdamson further opines:

a decent rebuttal but I’m not sure what policy you believe has addressed the root causes of terrorism in the Middle East.

I don’t believe you and I would agree as to what the root causes of terrorism are.  Without such agreement we cannot discuss means of remediation in any meaningful way.  I thus limit myself (for the most part) to discussions of the methods most effective in disrupting, killing, or otherwise removing the terrorists from the field of battle.

I’ve seen the West turn a blind eye to certain regimes which serve our interests while going after those which, while bad actors, have relatively little to do with supporting terrorism.

In the infamous words of Mae West, “One at a time, boys.”

We have so far managed to wage this war with almost no impact on our domestic economy and our domestic liberties and way of life.  Given the level of kvetching even so, it seems obvious to this observer that a more expansive war against the nation states and NGO’s which aid and abet the terrorists is unlikely to prove politically viable. 

The option to further escalate remains ours to make should the current limited war prove ineffective, or (God forbid) another attack on the scale (or even worse) of the 9/11 attacks, and the time for restraint will be behind us.

As for the increase in unchecked powers that your President now enjoys, so long as you’re prepared to have faith in his judgement then there may not be any problems but I prefer a system where one man does not wield such power.

What unchecked powers are those?  The Executive still reports on intelligence matters to the Congress, and stands for election every four years.

You finish with

<blockquote>Our strategy has demonstrated the first ever reduction in the rate and scale of terrorist attacks against our population.

An interesting thought but essentially meaningless given the short time frame being measured.</blockquote>

Five years in the 30 year history of modern mohammedean murder and terrorism is not such a short period as you suggest.

QED

Out Here
Rodney Graves


Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney Graves on October 26, 2006 at 03:08 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.