[...] Scott quipped in the thread about Obama’s Willful Ignorance on Iraq: …the idea that sending more [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dems, including O’Bummer, say we should stand down in Iraq because our troops are dying there, and shift focus to Afghanistan where the real action is.

Do they mean . . .

. . . so that they can die fighting the Taliban instead of Al Qaeda and Iran?

They don’t care about our troops, or their lives, or their mission. All they care about is using America’s troubles to oust their opponents and to gain and keep power for themselves for the purpose of self enrichment. They are, in a word, parasites.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Yon, … Bad analogy. Here’s how it actually plays:” — David the dense

I’m saying what they want to do, what they would if they could (what they are trying to do), not what they oppose.

Are you really that dense, or are you auditioning for a block of wood in your class play?
__________________________________________________________________________

The meaningless verbiage that wafts through their empty little heads is to thought, as free fall is to flight.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey Mr. Dave

I agree with Skeptic that between unseating the Taliban… AQ’s hosts in their Afghanistan digs… plus the Iraq action, that AQ has been on the defense instead of the offense since 911. And I believe it is this weakening, and scattering of their comfortable nest in both fronts that has prevented an attack on US soil.

Of course, the qualification of that is that neither you, nor I, actually knows the alternate universe reality. It is speculation on both our parts. However the obvious hit they have taken – both with the loss of so many of their experienced commanders, plus the financial freeze making it tougher for them to get the funding they did prior to 911 – does give us some reason to believe their weakened state may contribute to our lack of attack. So I cannot agree with your statement that “There is no reason to believe that.” All these events belie that statement on the surface.

The two Zawahiri documents I used for the above quotes have two different purposes. The first – the letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi in 2005, was not meant for publication. It was a letter that chastised him, and was requesting better communications on the Iraq front. You know, the one BHO says never was a front? In fact, Zawahiri was warning Zarqawi in the letter about security of meetings and important documents. Hardly something you include when you either anticipate, or plan, for interception.

Please take every caution in the meetings, especially when someone claims to carry an important letter or contributions. It was in this way that they arrested Khalid Sheikh. Likewise, please, if you want to meet one of your assistants, I hope that you don’t meet him in a public place or in a place that is not known to you. I hope that you would meet him in a secure place, not the place of your residence. Because Abu al-Faraj – may God set him free and release him from his torment – was lured by one of his brothers, who had been taken into custody, to meet him at a public location where a trap had been set.

The second “Open Meeting” was a Q & A forum that Zawahiri implicitly meant for publication. He took questions from Muslim/Arab journalists, and responded to them later. There is a part II to that forum, a translation of which has not yet been provided via Laura Mansfield. What he said in response to those questions holds with his letter to Zarqawi years before (inre Iraq). He did not have one private correspondence viewpoint between commanders, and alter it for public consumption. He has, and has always been about establishing an Islamic caliphate, and deposing the Egyptian government. So no… I do not think he was spreading deliberate misinformation. He was caught by surprise with a break down in their security of communication.

We went into Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban and then turned our focus in another direction, just as we did in the 80’s after the Soviet Union was driven out.

Big difference. We just plain left in the 80s. In this more recent case, we turned it over to the int’l forces of NATO. We did not lose our focus. We adjusted the war, merely working as part of an int’l army, as the libs so want us to do. Frankly, it’s always been a recipe for defeat to place command in the hands of NATO and the UN. So there is no equivalent between the 80s and 2001 to present.

I agree with quite a bit of your Pakistan statements…. with the exception of Musharraf. While he was far from perfect, he vacillated predictably back and forth, as any Muslim leader must do, to tacitly provide the intel and military aid to the US on terrorists, and still keep the support of citizens who view him as a US puppet. That is, and will always be, our problem with Muslim country allies. Thus my term, hostile ally. It is a dubious status that, at least, is superior to a hostile enemy. We need not be loved, but do need the intel and permission to go after terrorist havens with air strikes at least. I doubt we will ever expect more from a Muslim nation… including Iraq.

AG Khan and his status in Pakistan as “house arrest” still remains a problem. Pakistan refuses to allow the UN to question him. Benazir was on record prior to her assassination that she would allow that questioning to go on… thus earning the wrath of Baitullah Meshud. A man that served some purpose in her assassination, in conjunction with AQ. However you will notice that, despite her party’s election win, they still haven’t followed up on Benazir’s plan to allow the UN access to Khan. Nor have they changed his status of house arrest. As far as I know, they basically keep tabs on his whereabouts. In fact, one of their platforms for winning was reinstatement of the judges. That has yet to happen as well. Pakistan pols prove to be no more honest with their constituency than ours do with us.

But Pakistan is my largest worry for the next admin. In some ways, more than Iran. With Iran there is some agreement in the int’l community about their acquisition of nuke weaponry. Pakistan remains a very difficult situation…. a reluctant and piss porr ally. They take our cash, and give us little in return, as you said. I have no disagreement with that. Yet they whine that cash doesn’t cover their “costs”…. right.

However BHO’s suggestion to go into their territory without their permission is a disaster in the making. He is the wrong CIC to deal with Pakistan. He speaks softly to the enemy, and tough to our allies and US commanders. His priorities are backwards.

Which brings me to your comment:

But we’ll get rid of George Bush, the incompetent coach, and our military will have civilian leadership more worthy of them.

If that CIC is JSM, I might agree… somewhat. While I have beefs with poor decisions and planning, I also recognize that has happened in previous warfare as well. I also have problems that it took so long to correct the strategy for more pronouced success. However I totally disagree that Iraq was a bad decision, and have an admiration for a man who did what he felt he had to for rooting out a nest of terrorist vermin in the region. He could have taken the easy way out and followed popular opinion. But he saw trouble downline. And the Harmony/ISG documents prove his fears of Saddam’s dealings with jihad groups bore out as true.

You and I will never agree on that, because neither of us can show absolutely a parallel universe with events had we allowed Saddam to stay in power and continue to use jihad groups as an unofficial State weapon. However, in light of the two paths, I see more good in the future with a free Iraq as an Arab democracy, than an Iraq under Saddam and his murderous thugs son, bolstered by his IIS and Ba’athist extremists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It was a monumental mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.

Congratulations. Now why don’t you go back in time and fix that you ignorant slug. You want to argue about whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq, fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are in there. And the time, manner, and situation in how we leave is important. And stains like you haven’t cared about the manner or situation, in leaving, only the time. And the time has always been ASAP.

Like I said no matter the circumstances you are demanding that we leave. But you wanted to make some claim at the people wanting us to stay was somehow bad. You wanted us to leave in defeat and our enemies emboldened (Hell I bet you think Sadr is still victorious), whereas the people who wanted us to stay when things were going rough and still want us to stay now that they are going better recognize that in the future we can leave when the time is right. The time is not right to leave yet because the situation is not right.

Probably believed Harry Reid when he said “the war is lost” a year ago too.

BTW why do you hate brown people so much that you want them to be killed by a now dead murdering dictator?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Buzz

No, here’s what I really think:

It was a monumental mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.

Now we should be making plans for a reasonable withdrawal.

Yon,

Bad analogy. Here’s how it actually plays:

We will still have the star players in there – Gen. Petraeus and our troopers – whoever wins the election.

But we’ll get rid of George Bush, the incompetent coach, and our military will have civilian leadership more worthy of them.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

I’m not suggesting anything about the Clinton administrations successes against AQ. I agree with your AQ timeline. I am responding to Skeptic’s position that the reason that we have not been attacked in the homeland is Iraq. There is no reason to believe that.

You quote extensively from Zawahiri’s and Zarqawi intercepted communications to illustrate AQ’s real intentions. You don’t think AQ knows its communications are intercepted? Especially given that they are openly available on FA? Given that, do you really think they’re revealing their true plans? I’m sure you’ve heard of the intelligence technique of misinformation? Telling the enemy one thing, so you can do another.

With respect to Gen. Petraeus’ testimony: Of course from his point of view, it’s the central front in terms of troops committed and actual combat. But that’s because we are not fully taking the fight to AQ and their former and current allies, the Taliban, in Afqhanistan. We went into Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban and then turned our focus in another direction, just as we did in the 80’s after the Soviet Union was driven out. We should have finished the job there before we even thought about Iraq. Now we have two unstable countries in the Middle East. From a strategic standpoint it’s like what Hitler did when he opened up the Eastern Front. We left a token force and expected NATO to carry the ball after we had adopted a go-it-alone attitude in Iraq. Remember Rumsfeld’s typically arrogant comments disparaging the “Old Europe.” Remember “freedom fries.”

Pakistan was supporting jihadi groups in Kashmir as a buffer against India well before 9/11. Musharaf was never a trustworthy ally, whether he wanted to be or not. AQ Khan, responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology to rogue nations is sitting fat dumb and happy in Pakistan instead of in jail where he belongs.

“Hostile” ally is an oxymoron. As the old expression goes, “With friends like that who needs enemies?” What have we received in return for the $10B. in taxpayers money we have sent to Pakistan since 2001?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

America’s opinion:

LINK

Like or Dislike: 0  0

AGAIN:

James: Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your policy which amounts to an abandonment of Iraq to the terrorists and Saddamites?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

That’s eight years. What did we do that kept OBL out of our homeland for that time period?

Dave Dave… remember AQ history. They were booted out of the Sudan in 1996, so AQ and OBL had to find a new home. So they packed up their truck and moved to Beverly…. Afghanistan, that is. Taliban, black burka country.

In 1998 he merged AQ, tied up with Zawahiri formally via the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998. None of these business dealings hindered the planning for 911, nor the implementation of bombing the USS Cole months before the election.

In short, OBL was not idle, but laying the groundwork. It was not for stellar Clinton admin security measures, as you may be subtly suggesting. Only those not astute to AQ history and their timelines of merging forces would buy into that bit.

How is it that Gen Mullen and Sec. Gates are saying that they want to look at increasing troop levels in Afghanistan as they reduce forces in Iraq – the same thing that Obama is saying – but you guys disagree with it.

James Manning… forgot to mention….you’re back! Kewl.

Evidently you misinterpret Scott’s sarcasm. This relates to the BHO argument that troops should be in Afghanistan and not Iraq, because the former is where AQ is.

Scott rightly points out the absurdity in that. AQ is harbored in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The neo-Taliban in Afghanistan are AQ friendly, as are the neo-Taliban in Pakistan.

I don’t believe any are against increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. However that is only necessary because the rest of the NATO participants refuse to honor their troop pledges. So we are having to pick up the slack to meet the NATO needs.

Personally, if we are going to be doing a “Surge” in Afghanistan, I want our boys taking off the blue helmets and being under *US commanders*, and our rules of engagement. I am not in support of providing NATO with our military to command on that level.

Like or Dislike: 0  0