T Nation

7/7 "Mastermind" Seized, Iraq


"The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein?s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the ?high-value detainee programme? at Guantanamo Bay."

See the rest of the article. But yeah, we should just cut and run. Hand them the victory, you know?

There’s only a small pool of terrorists in the world.

Once you catch’em all, terrorism will disappear forever.

It’s not like terrorists are a renewable commodities, they can’t recruit more and there is no supply of angry young men in the world to fuel them.

Imagine trying to recruit someone who’s just lost most of his family to a car bomb in Iraq. I mean, you won’t be able to convince him that the US has any responsibility… grief and anger do nothing if not help to think clearly.

And since they’re not organized into independent cells that don’t know about the others, it’s easy to get them all. They can’t hide for years and blend into the citizenry; they have to wear their “I (heart) Terror” t-shirts in public.

You’ve got the problem licked. Don’t bother figuring out the root causes, just keep going after them after they’ve killed dozens or hundreds.

Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over.

[quote]pookie wrote:
There’s only a small pool of terrorists in the world.

Once you catch’em all, terrorism will disappear forever.

It’s not like terrorists are a renewable commodities, they can’t recruit more and there is no supply of angry young men in the world to fuel them.

Imagine trying to recruit someone who’s just lost most of his family to a car bomb in Iraq. I mean, you won’t be able to convince him that the US has any responsibility… grief and anger do nothing if not help to think clearly.

And since they’re not organized into independent cells that don’t know about the others, it’s easy to get them all. They can’t hide for years and blend into the citizenry; they have to wear their “I (heart) Terror” t-shirts in public.

You’ve got the problem licked. Don’t bother figuring out the root causes, just keep going after them after they’ve killed dozens or hundreds.

Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over.

[/quote]

Err, yeah. Excellent rebuttal. No…really. Yeah.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over. [/quote]

Snap! You took the term “pwned” to a whole new level.

[quote]Sloth wrote:


"The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein?s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the ?high-value detainee programme? at Guantanamo Bay."

See the rest of the article. But yeah, we should just cut and run. Hand them the victory, you know?[/quote]

Yes. Obviously we should stay indefinitely so we can contiue capturing people 6 years from now who might do something 3 years from now, because of what we are doing today, it really just goes without saying.

[quote]pookie wrote:
There’s only a small pool of terrorists in the world.

Once you catch’em all, terrorism will disappear forever.

It’s not like terrorists are a renewable commodities, they can’t recruit more and there is no supply of angry young men in the world to fuel them.

Imagine trying to recruit someone who’s just lost most of his family to a car bomb in Iraq. I mean, you won’t be able to convince him that the US has any responsibility… grief and anger do nothing if not help to think clearly.

And since they’re not organized into independent cells that don’t know about the others, it’s easy to get them all. They can’t hide for years and blend into the citizenry; they have to wear their “I (heart) Terror” t-shirts in public.

You’ve got the problem licked. Don’t bother figuring out the root causes, just keep going after them after they’ve killed dozens or hundreds.

Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over.

[/quote]
Oh snap! You beat me to the snark! Damn.

Right, because allowing Al Qaeda to make Iraq an unopposed safe haven for itself and and it’s affiliated Islamic terror groups…No, of course, retreating is the better solution to combating them!

[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:


"The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein?s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the ?high-value detainee programme? at Guantanamo Bay."

See the rest of the article. But yeah, we should just cut and run. Hand them the victory, you know?

Yes. Obviously we should stay indefinitely so we can contiue capturing people 6 years from now who might do something 3 years from now, because of what we are doing today, it really just goes without saying.
[/quote]

Brilliant reply! Obviously throwing up our hands and accepting our punishment by the terrorists is the key way to fight them! Because if we do nothing! They’ll go away! Brilliant!

[quote]lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over.

Snap! You took the term “pwned” to a whole new level.

[/quote]

Except, it’s based of an argument I didn’t make. I don’t believe there is a single person that could be taken out, and it’s all over. It’s a rather transparent and invalid debate tactic. When one can’t debate the actual arguments made by your opponent, make them up!

I think Sen. Lieberman makes an excellent speech here.

"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this–why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to “transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war–to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations.”

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn’t be “policing a civil war,” that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will
not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them–no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians–men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda’s own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq’s political center, overthrow Iraq’s elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct “targeted counter-terror operations” under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.

But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike–and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share
valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq’s neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won’t, in his words, be “interjecting themselves between warring factions” or “trying to sort friend from foe.”

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well.

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids–in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed–and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn’t have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and–for that matter–a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around–just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq–now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn’t so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is “the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007.”

Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date–what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible–a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts “pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises.”

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would “almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.”

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will “reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency.”

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues–where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary–in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. “In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar,” he said, “if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.”

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us–a man who was described by one Army officer as “the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with in Anbar [since] 2003.”

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is “a large and growing population of millions–who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over.”

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces–regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose “tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government.”

I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

But I don’t see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them–regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table–along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a “diplomatic, economic, and political offensive starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region.”

I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success–but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost–but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

I yield the floor."

Now that, is a true example of “pwned.”

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Terror is like a video game, once you get the final boss, it’s all over.

Snap! You took the term “pwned” to a whole new level.

Except, it’s based of an argument I didn’t make. I don’t believe there is a single person that could be taken out, and it’s all over. It’s a rather transparent and invalid debate tactic.
[/quote]

Hmmm…I guess my pun was too subtle.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Right, because allowing Al Qaeda to make Iraq an unopposed safe haven for itself and and it’s affiliated Islamic terror groups.[/quote]

Guess who’s directly responsible for that? Hum?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Right, because allowing Al Qaeda to make Iraq an unopposed safe haven for itself and and it’s affiliated Islamic terror groups…No, of course, retreating is the better solution to combating them![/quote]

Didn’t Zap post a news item yesterday about Sunni security forces fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? Do you think that only you can fight them? The Iraqis might be a lot better at fighting them than you think. Maybe you’re just in the way.

Also, please explain how the Iraq war prevents Al Qaeda from operating elsewhere? Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. Have they all found the secret to eradicating all terrorists from their borders?

Also, please explain how you combat them effectively when you don’t know who “they” are before they strike? The guy driving the car filled with explosives is just another civilian before he goes boom at the roadside checkpoint. Wouldn’t covert infiltration missions cost less, kill less civilians and troops and produce just as much if not more results?

Your way of fighting terrorism has got to be the costliest (in money and lives) ever devised.

Doesn’t seem to work too well either: http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070428/NEWS01/704280333/1002/NEWS01

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Right, because allowing Al Qaeda to make Iraq an unopposed safe haven for itself and and it’s affiliated Islamic terror groups.

Guess who’s directly responsible for that? Hum?

[/quote]

You.

Lixy, I have to ask you, since you try to speak for ALL Iraqis…what about the anti- Al Qaeda, anti-insurgency Iraqi’s that don’t want us to commit to a hasty withdraw? What about the one’s that want us to stay and help them fight Al Qaeda and the sectarian executioners?

Like the Sunni leader that was discussed on this forum recently? What do you think of him? Should he abandoned to the above mentioned’s mercy?

[quote]pookie wrote:

Didn’t Zap post a news item yesterday about Sunni security forces fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq? Do you think that only you can fight them? The Iraqis might be a lot better at fighting them than you think. Maybe you’re just in the way.
[/quote]

Actually, if you’ll read the article discussing this you’ll see that the Sunni Leader, Abdul Sattar, flat out says, “In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar,” he said, “if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos.”

Let me ask you, if you abandon him to Al Qaeda and his enemies, how quick will the next moderate anti-Jihadist leader step up to fill his shoes? In fact, have you considered the enemies we’d make by abandoning those we’ve been able to form alliances with?

Have you considered the amount of trust and cooperation that will be shattered if we say “good luck” as we wave the white flag on our way out? Why the hell would anyone help the US fight Al Qaeda?

Imagine you’re a local Iraqi leader, who has been listening to Sattar’s talk of alliance with the US, and like-minded Shia, to fight sectarian extremists and Al Qaeda. You’ve become increasingly convinced as sectarian Sunnis and Al Qdaeda kill your fellow Sunnis for not cooperating in their agenda.

You’re poised to pledge your tribe/town to fighting oppose these terrorists…And then the US congress passes a bill that says no matter what, we’re pulling out on this day.

Sorry, I’m not understanding exactly what you’re asking.

Read Lieberman’s speech I posted. It addresses the problem.

Fighting wars usually are costly. It’s not new.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:


"The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein?s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the ?high-value detainee programme? at Guantanamo Bay."

See the rest of the article. But yeah, we should just cut and run. Hand them the victory, you know?

Yes. Obviously we should stay indefinitely so we can contiue capturing people 6 years from now who might do something 3 years from now, because of what we are doing today, it really just goes without saying.

Brilliant reply! Obviously throwing up our hands and accepting our punishment by the terrorists is the key way to fight them! Because if we do nothing! They’ll go away! Brilliant!
[/quote]

Accepting punishment is what we do now. And of course there are smarter ways to fight terrorism than creating more terrorists and giving them U.S. soldiers to hone their tactics against every single day.

You do realize the goal should be less terrorism, not fight more terrorists…right?

[quote]100meters wrote:

Accepting punishment is what we do now. And of course there are smarter ways to fight terrorism than creating more terrorists and giving them U.S. soldiers to hone their tactics against every single day.

You do realize the goal should be less terrorism, not fight more terrorists…right?[/quote]

Accepting punishment? Our forces kill/capture far more Al Qaeda, and their pals, than they do ours. You talk about Al Qaeda honing their tactics in this type of warfare, well so do our guys.

And, correct, that is the goal. Which is why victory in Iraq has to be achieved. You’re not going to argue that handing a victory to Al Qaeda in Iraq will be a better solution for lessening the threat of terrorism, are you?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Accepting punishment? Our forces kill/capture far more Al Qaeda, and their pals, than they do ours. [/quote]

But while you have trouble enlisting people and have to extend the troops duty tour, the other side gains more support everyday you stay on their lands. They claimed to be literally turning down applicants…

I don’t recall who exactly said that but “Iraq is not a prize for you to be lost or won”.

In case you missed it, it already belongs to the Iraqis.

Getting out of Iraq is NOT a victory for Al-Qaeda. If anything, it’ll automatically and instantely shrink their support base. So, yes. it’s a better solution. But if you wanna make a matter of principle, then you’re just as crazy as Ben-Laden & co…

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Let me ask you, if you abandon him to Al Qaeda and his enemies, how quick will the next moderate anti-Jihadist leader step up to fill his shoes? In fact, have you considered the enemies we’d make by abandoning those we’ve been able to form alliances with?[/quote]

Who knows? More Iraqis than you think might step up and fight to restore peace to the country if they know they can’t count on anyone but themselves to do it.

The other factor is that you can’t wage this war indefinitely. Democratic nations need to plan according to their nature, which is that the people will tire of a war that shows no progress over a period of months and years. Eventually, they’ll vote to bring back the troops. Good or bad, that fact has to be taken into account before taking action. Multi-national coalitions (real ones, not “of the willing”) can increase the chances of sticking it out 'til the end, since members don’t want to be seen as welshing on their initial commitment.

At some point, when something is not working, you need to stop doing the same thing over and over and figure out something new to try. Doing 5% more of that same thing(“the surge”) is probably not it.

Why not? Al Qaeda is not exclusively your problem.

For some odd reason, you seem to think that the only solution to terrorism is the Iraq war. It’s that or nothing at all.

That’s completely ridiculous. There are many other ways to fight terrorism, probably some much better ways, as the Iraq war has been increasing world-wide terrorism year after year.

[quote]Imagine you’re a local Iraqi leader, who has been listening to Sattar’s talk of alliance with the US, and like-minded Shia, to fight sectarian extremists and Al Qaeda. You’ve become increasingly convinced as sectarian Sunnis and Al Qdaeda kill your fellow Sunnis for not cooperating in their agenda.

You’re poised to pledge your tribe/town to fighting oppose these terrorists…And then the US congress passes a bill that says no matter what, we’re pulling out on this day.[/quote]

Were have those groups been for the last 4 years? Too little, too late. That’s all.

[quote]Also, please explain how the Iraq war prevents Al Qaeda from operating elsewhere? Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. Have they all found the secret to eradicating all terrorists from their borders?

Sorry, I’m not understanding exactly what you’re asking.[/quote]

You claim that being in Iraq prevents Al Qaeda from establishing Iraq as one of their bastion of operation. I’m asking what’s preventing Al Qaeda from operating anywhere else? In other words, I fail to see how denying them Iraq prevents them from using any number of other countries for their HQ.

Haven’t had time to read it yet, I’ll check it out later.

You wouldn’t have the cliff notes version by any chance?

Costs with accompanying results is understandable. Costs without results, or worse, opposing results is not.