Iraqi PM insists peace is possible without U.S.

[DarkReign]

but we're also not in a traditional war. we can kill them at a ratio of 10-to-1 but they get their victories from bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and not necessarily by killing more of us than we kill of them. Essentially, their main function is to make the U.S. look foolish, and they gain ground in that regard with every car bombing.

I think that is an accurate picture of "Al Queda" or whatever label they wear. Theyre not trying to win a war, theyre trying to undermine the effort.

Its not a game unless both sides have a common goal. We and "they" obviously do not, therefore, the terms of victory are difficult to explain, nonetheless attain.

There is no such thing as "winning" in Iraq. The absolute best one could hope for is a stalemate. See Vietnam and Korea.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think that is an accurate picture of "Al Queda" or whatever label they wear. Theyre not trying to win a war, theyre trying to undermine the effort.

Its not a game unless both sides have a common goal. We and "they" obviously do not, therefore, the terms of victory are difficult to explain, nonetheless attain.

There is no such thing as "winning" in Iraq. The absolute best one could hope for is a stalemate. See Vietnam and Korea.

then add into the mix the fact that everybody else over there is doing the same thing as AQ and you get these results: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

[Yonivore]

but we're also not in a traditional war. we can kill them at a ratio of 10-to-1 but they get their victories from bombing the crap out of innocent civilians and not necessarily by killing more of us than we kill of them. Essentially, their main function is to make the U.S. look foolish, and they gain ground in that regard with every car bombing.

They'll eventually run out of people willing to organize, fund, and train their jihad.

It's the same dynamic that insures the KKK no longer lynches African Americans and that the Black Panthers no longer burn down cities. You run out of leaders either through attrition or loss of confidence in an ideology.

Look at what's happening in "Palestine."

The degree of the self-inflicted catastrophe that Hamas created with its rebellion is coming into clearer focus after polling Gaza voters. The territory used to serve as Hamas' political power base, but now a plurality of voters support their rival, Fatah. Even worse, two-thirds of previous Hamas voters would not repeat that mistake:

The violent takeover of the Gaza Strip has cost Hamas some support there and bolstered its rival, Fatah, according to a poll released Sunday.

Hamas swept through Gaza last month, vanquishing numerically superior forces aligned with Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who responded by dismissing the Hamas-led government and installing a new one with his backers.

The poll of Gaza residents shows a backlash. Hamas got only 23 percent support, down from 29 percent in the previous survey last month, while Fatah climbed from 31 percent to 43 percent.

The poll, the first major survey since the Hamas takeover, also showed that 66 percent of Hamas supporters said they would vote Fatah if it undertook reforms.

On one level, this poll -- like most -- is irrelevant. Hamas didn't conduct a coup so they could be popularly re-elected, which Gazans apparently have just discovered. An increasing awareness of Hamas' "authoritarian" nature is one of the reasons for the disaffection in the poll, which should have come as no surprise to anyone who knows the track record of radical Islamist movements.

Something along the same lines is occurring in Iraq. That's why you have previously hostile insurgent groups now cooperating with the Multinational forces there. They've discovered al Qaeda offers them the same thing Hamas offers Gazans -- totalitarian, theocratic, and inflexible rule.

Al Qaeda made it clear a long time ago that Iraq was the central battle in their global jihad and that once they defeated us there, the country would become the central focus of a regional -- but, eventually global -- caliphate.

If they are defeated in Iraq, they -- like Hamas -- will lose much of the popular support that is currently fueling their terrorist training camps. Removing the leadership by tomahawk missile or through attrition will only speed up the process.

[clambake]

They'll eventually run out of people willing to organize, fund, and train their jihad.

It's the same dynamic that insures the KKK no longer lynches African Americans and that the Black Panthers no longer burn down cities. You run out of leaders either through attrition or loss of confidence in an ideology

[Oh, Gee!!]

Something along the same lines is occurring in Iraq. That's why you have previously hostile insurgent groups now cooperating with the Multinational forces there. They've discovered al Qaeda offers them the same thing Hamas offers Gazans -- totalitarian, theocratic, and inflexible rule.

I wonder if those formerly hostile groups are helping in our effort to defeat AQ in Iraq in hopes of instilling their own brand of totalitarinism in Iraq?

Al Qaeda made it clear a long time ago that Iraq was the central battle in their global jihad and that once they defeated us there, the country would become the central focus of a regional -- but, eventually global -- caliphate.

If they are defeated in Iraq, they -- like Hamas -- will lose much of the popular support that is currently fueling their terrorist training camps.

It's impossible to tell whether a US victory in Iraq will cause AQ to lose support. It's not as though the defeat of AQ in Afghanistan was the death knell we had hoped for in that region.

[Yonivore]

I wonder if those formerly hostile groups are helping in our effort to defeat AQ in Iraq in hopes of instilling their own brand of totalitarinism in Iraq?

A reasonable concern, I admit. However, one thing's for sure, it won't be al Qaeda and they're the group that has declared war on us.

It's impossible to tell whether a US victory in Iraq will cause AQ to lose support. It's not as though the defeat of AQ in Afghanistan was the death knell we had hoped for in that region.

I think Zawahiri's multiple tapes, over the past year, pleading for jihadists is prime example of what affect our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elswhere are having on their organization.

I also think the latest tape is a pathetic attempt to use what little "prestige" bin Laden's visage still holds to bring people into al Qaeda. It's also a pretty good indicator bin Laden is dead.

[Oh, Gee!!]

A reasonable concern, I admit. However, one thing's for sure, it won't be al Qaeda and they're the group that has declared war on us.

I think Zawahiri's multiple tapes, over the past year, pleading for jihadists is prime example of what affect our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elswhere are having on their organization.

I also think the latest tape is a pathetic attempt to use what little "prestige" bin Laden's visage still holds to bring people into al Qaeda. It's also a pretty good indicator bin Laden is dead.

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.

[Yonivore]

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq.

Several thousand of them won't.

I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.

It's not just me.

"Baghdad is the capital of the caliphate."

"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war … raging in [Iraq]."

"I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."

Seems to be al Qaeda disagrees with you over Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

My concern is that Al Qaeda can simply slink away and live to fight another day (maybe on our soil) regardless of the outcome in Iraq. I just don't see Iraq as the all-or-nothing proposition you see it as when it comes to Al Qaeda.

OG, they too are tied up in Iraq. Not just us.

Did you see the news this weekend about OBL telling
everyone about how great it was to blow yourself up. How long
before someone ask: if it so great how come you haven't
blown yourself up?

One other question. If we leave, what have we accomplished? What will be there story line be. We won,
they lost. We defeated the "big Satan" again just as
we have always done. Have no fear of them. They are
weak, we are strong. Praise Alla!

[Oh, Gee!!]

Seems to be al Qaeda disagrees with you over Iraq.

nothing prevents them from stopping and regrouping, not even OBL's words. Seems like that's what they have done in Afghanistan.

[Oh, Gee!!]

OG, they too are tied up in Iraq. Not just us.

Did you see the news this weekend about OBL telling
everyone about how great it was to blow yourself up. How long
before someone ask: if it so great how come you haven't
blown yourself up?

One other question. If we leave, what have we accomplished? What will be there story line be. We won,
they lost. We defeated the "big Satan" again just as
we have always done. Have no fear of them. They are
weak, we are strong. Praise Alla!

Whatever occurs in Iraq will be spun as propaganda by AQ.

[xrayzebra]

Whatever occurs in Iraq will be spun as propaganda by AQ.

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress...... Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress...... Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.

Once again ray we have already won the war. You lost me at " hush says.."

[xrayzebra]

^^I can understand that, losing you. It is not hard to under-
stand. Just think, just a little bit.

[Oh, Gee!!]

So that is why we should just leave? Winning is not an
option. Damn, you sound just like Reid and Pelosi.

I love it, well really not. Silly people like you and the rest
of the dimm-o-craps and wannabe publicans want to
declare defeat. But the American people don't. Like
Rush says, who has the lowest numbers. Those that want
out of Iraq or the Congress...... Congress has lower
numbers than Bush. Also, like Rush says, who the
cares what Congress says, Bush is the CINC, they want
to end the war, cut off funds. No guts no glory. And I
will assure you they have no guts.

You remind me of a crazy person.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You remind me of a crazy person.

ray isn't crazy he's a ditto head..

[clambake]

You remind me of a crazy person.

He can hide his own Easter eggs, wrap his own presents, throw his own surprise party, write his own obituary. Rush

[boutons_]

the conditions for the current fiasco and failure to secure Iraq were determined back in 2003: too few US troops (Shinsheki 400K vs Rummy 130K), disbanding the Iraqi army+police (Bremer), forbidding mid/low level Baathists any role.

dubya/ head/accomplices have ed up over and over and over to get us where we are now. And yet yoni and WC want to keep letting dubya and head keeping ing up and wasting US military indefinitely.

And note that "support the troops" doesn't work for dubya. He's trashed or replaced a whole string of generals, blaming Tommy Franks for the initial round of ups. Petraeus' colleagues think dubya is setting up Petraeus to be the next scapegoat when the surge is seen to have failed to secure just Bagdad.

It's easy to imagine dubya and head saying in the future "our idea to grab the oil in Iraq was wonderful, the but military ed it up", while refusing, as they do now, for ANY blame for the Iraq disaster.

Then the ankle-biters and knee-jerks and Repug shills like yoni and WC and Clanny will be sliming opponents of the Iraq war as traitors, defeatists, gutless chicken s while absolving dubya and head of all blame.

[Yonivore]

, even Senator Jim Webb sees the progress being made in Iraq and declares imminent victory there. But, of course, that wasn't quite his intention. He was attempting to declare a failure but accidentally got his facts right. On Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, a debate waged between Senators Jim Webb and Lindsay Graham resulted in the following statement by Senator Webb.

And with respect to al-Qaeda, quite frankly, al-Qaeda didn’t come to Iraq to try to destroy a democracy. That’s a very, very flimsy democracy there. We all recognize that. Al-Qaeda came to Iraq because the United States was in Iraq, and the people in al-Anbar are not aligning themselves with the United States. It’s “The enemy of the enemy is my friend.” This hasn’t been the Iraqi military, the national military that’s been taking out al-Qaeda. It’s been a redneck justice. It’s been these sectarian groups out there who don’t like al-Qaeda. And if we leave, they still will not like al-Qaeda.

His statement is right on so many points, it's more than a little heartening.

First, democracy or no, Al-Qaeda is in Iraq to attack the United States. Where would the Senator rather rather have them attack us? Second, he is correct that this is a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But in terms of Al-Qaeda, that is called aligning themselves with the United States. We share a common enemy and are fighting it together. That is all "ally" means. What is he expecting? Conversions? Third, al-Anbar is a Sunni province. al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Sunnis have been their support base. And now a major part of that support base is turning against al-Qaeda.

The biggest sign of success is when we no longer need to count on the military solutions but rather, the support base itself turns against the terrorists. Yet he is bemoaning the absence of a military component to this accomplishment. Senator Webb has done us the favor of highlighting some outstanding signs of imminent success although it was rather ambitious of him to spin them the way he did. It is also difficult to reconcile his belief that this revolt by the support base is "redneck justice" with the following statement taken from his own website.

Looking at these [Viet Nam] examples, you come to a conclusion about the use of force in this situation. In my opinion, we need to articulate clearly that we do not have a quarrel with the Muslim world. But the part of the Muslim world that considers itself at war with us must be on notice. Who are these people? They are the ones conducting terrorist activities and those training and providing logistical support to them. All those people, in my opinion, should be fair game. Over time, we should see the people who are conducting this international campaign of terrorism being cut away from their support base. Many good people were cut away from the support base of the South Vietnamese government. I think there’s a direct parallel.

Senator Webb is delivering good news suggesting that resistance to terrorism may soon be strong enough for us to reduce support levels. But he sounds greatly disappointed that this resistance is at the grass roots, and not a military accomplishment.

Why do I suspect that if it was a military accomplishment, he would be lamenting the absence of grass roots support?

[PixelPusher]

^Because he recognizes that there is more than one type of "grass roots" in Iraq, and once We and AQ leave, they'll set their sights on each other. You know, that pesky "civil war" thing you and Neocons pretend doesn't exist.

Why do I suspect that if it was a military accomplishment, he would be lamenting the absence of grass roots support?

Why do I suspect that if the resulting civil war occurs on Bush's watch, it'll be "Those F'ing Iraqis!" fault, but if the pullout and civil war occurs on a Democrat's watch in '09 or later, it'll be "SEE! We TOLD you this would happen, ya lousy cut'n'runners!"

[Yonivore]

Gen. Pace Declares Iraq "Sea Change"

Against the backdrop of stories like this one, Harry Reid's surrender slumber party takes on an almost lunatic air --a rushing about by the lefties to legislate defeat before the clear facts of progress leading to victory become widely known and lastingly illustrative of the Dems' inability to be trusted with the country's national security.

Seems like desperation to undermine the war before it is irretreivably won is settling into the Democrat camp.

I wonder what their election prospects will be next year when the world realizes how wrong they all were about Iraq.

[Oh, Gee!!]

it's not exactly going smoothly in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070717/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071600330.html

[xrayzebra]

How bout we do like the Bush ask. Give it until September.

Only about 75 days.

I would like to ask boutons something, I know I wont get an answer, but it will give you all a chance to answer, what is
the alternative to not winning in Iraq. We just pull all the
troops out, which wont happen, and sit on our butt here in
good old USA and wait for something to happen? We haven't
secured our borders, that I will blame on Bush and the
dimm-o-craps, we haven't increased the military strength, we
have relied upon the National Guard and reserves. That again
is Bush's and Congress as a whole fault. We will, I predict,
have many more battles, wars, to fight in the ME and I am not
sure the country is geared to accept that fact. AQ is entrenched
in so many countries and denied by so many politicians that it
is scary. I hear all these politicians talk about negotiating with
these people, okay, where do we find them? How do you enforce
any negotiated settlement? What country do you negotiate with?
Which group? You are dealing with radicals, religious nuts who
are still in the dark ages............oh I could go on, but what is
the point. Just waiting for the "it was all our fault" group to
comment.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gen. Pace Declares Iraq "Sea Change"

Against the backdrop of stories like this one, Harry Reid's surrender slumber party takes on an almost lunatic air --a rushing about by the lefties to legislate defeat before the clear facts of progress leading to victory become widely known and lastingly illustrative of the Dems' inability to be trusted with the country's national security.

Seems like desperation to undermine the war before it is irretreivably won is settling into the Democrat camp.

I wonder what their election prospects will be next year when the world realizes how wrong they all were about Iraq.

wrong about Iraq? wrong about what? let's say iraq becomes stable before the 08 elections how will that hurt the dems? I guarantee you that the 70% of the population that want us out of Iraq will be satisfied and in the end it may benefit the dems for pushing to get us out of there..

[PixelPusher]

wrong about Iraq? wrong about what? let's say iraq becomes stable before the 08 elections how will that hurt the dems? I guarantee you that the 70% of the population that want us out of Iraq will be satisfied and in the end it may benefit the dems for pushing to get us out of there..

Define "becoming stable"? A mutual detante by the various factions while the U.S. pounds on a few AQ, declares "victory" and leaves? And then when they resume hostilities, what then? Can't go with the "it'll be a disaster if we leave" talking point, can they? It'll probably be a variant of the "Those f'ing Iraqis!" blame game.