A common & misguided comment on the part of libs, Paul supporters, & other critics of the Iraq operation is that 'Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda, and takes our eye off the 'real war' in Afghanhistan'... Usually this is connected to some comment about not catching Bin Laden...

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth... Afghanistan needed to be dealt with first - in the sense that forcing AQ out would disrupt their tactical abilities in preparation for the 'next stage' (Iraq).... And it is still important that we 'follow through' on our promise to the Afgans in terms of helping them keep their elected government... But they are not, nor have they ever been, the key to defeating AQ.... Iraq is...

So, let's take a look at the 'big picture' on the subject...

First, Bin Laden himself...

Capturing Bin Laden would be a great political event, as far as support for the war is concerned... And it would bring a sense of closure to the victims of his attacks.. But that's about all that would be accomplished... Bin Laden is a figurehead & symbolic leader. If he dies or is captured, he becomes a martyr & is quickly replaced by whoever AQ feels can best carry on in his memory... The long-term military impact? Almost non-existant...

In the same sense that not finding Hitler didn't impact the defeat of Nazisim, not finding Bin Laden will have no impact on the defeat of Al Queda.

Second, the 'Afganhistan Question'...

This one requires a bit more detail, as it's rooted in a fundamental mis-conceptualization of the military situation WRT AQ... Namely the thought that because AQ was using A-stan as a training & staging ground, A-stan must be the 'homeland' of Al Queda...

Folks who advocate focusing on Afghanhistan, or who believe we should have declared war all fall into this trap...

It's understandable - in past 'conventional' wars, the place where you train your forces & where your top leadership resides is usually deep inside your homeland, along with your core supporters & the economic & political support for your war effort, IF you are a nation-state combatant...

In such a case, you have to defend this area because 'all your eggs' are in that basket... You can't abandon it & displace to another country, because it's YOUR country...

BUT here's the problem. Al Queda is NOT a nation-state combatant. They have no borders, no 'country', and do NOT keep all their eggs in one basket...

So their top leadership, their training & staging areas, and their 'support center' can and often are all located in different places... And their leadership & training/staging operations are MOBILE and can easily be moved to 'safe' areas should they be threatened...

The advantage to this is that they do not have to defend the nations that they use for training or leadership positions (places like A-stan) - they can just abandon those after a brief fight, and displace to a new 'host' state (or un-governed/failed territory)....

Chasing them from failed state to failed state does very little damage to their capabilities, and is NOT cost effective for the pursuing power (US)...

Which brings us to the point of all this:

To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'...

And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East...

Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy...

So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950...

They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them...

Thus, Al Queda has committed everything they have to the situation in Iraq (as evidenced by a sharp drop in Al Queda attacks on western targets... Every terror attack NOT RELATED TO IRAQ since 2003 has been either (a) in the Muslim World, or (b) conducted by a non-Queda copy-cat group)... They have tried everything from attempting to start a Muslim-on-Muslim civil war by bombing Muslim shrines, to physically attempting to establish Islamic theocracy in parts of Iraq... Failing at both, they have resorted to attempting to terrorize Iraqis into supporting them, or at least rejecting us - hoping for a Vietnam-style scenario where the US gets 'tired' and abandons the Iraqi campaign, giving them the 'victory' they need to preserve their reputation & thus their viability as an organization...

They are failing at that too, and destroying themselves in the process - in fact, their desparation has produced an unintended side-bonus: Not only are they being shown as impotent & unable to 'defend' Iraq, but their methods are alienating not just Iraqis but Arabs in general...

Rather than being seen as 'liberators' fighting the corrupt regimes of the ME, their willingness to kill, rape & torture fellow Muslims has given folks a view of what life under Al Queda's utopia would be like... And that vision is being rejected... This is the core of the civil revolt in Iraq - the people do not want to trade one tyrant (Saddam) for another (Queda)...

But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation...

Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control.

Quoted: Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control.

That's another thread...

I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap...

Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control. That's another thread... I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap...

They wont listen.

They have watched enough news to know the truth, Bush lied, people died!

Iraq is a giant roach motel, a huge turd in the AQ punchbowl, and the most strategically placed FOB we could imagine

Aside from fighting AQII (Al Qaeda in Iraq) its also been a magnent for all kinds of jihads to go there to get killed. Most of the fighters I came into contact with were not from Iraq. We had everything from Palestinians to Chechen's in our interogation facility. LOTS of literature from groups outside Iraq including Hamas military type field guides.

Quoted: -SNIP-

Spot on.  I sometimes get sick of explaining this over and over again to people.

Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved.

Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved.

We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand?  Did you read any of the posts preceding yours?

You probably think that we should wait until Iran actually detonates a nuke on our guys or even gets one in here before we should do anything about that too, huh.

Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand?

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

That's lame, lame as hell.  If you are trying to say we should have invaded the Saudis, you are either very dense or have an agenda.

Tim McVeigh was an American.  Should we invade ourselves for what he did?

but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs...an enemy with no state.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything. Saudi Arabia didnt attack us, Iraq didnt attack us, and Afghanistan didnt attack us. Al Qaeda did so we have to go where they are, or where they will come to us, and thats exactly what happened.

You're slick - real slick Dave.

You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN.

Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this:

But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation...

Answer:
IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE.
"DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore.


Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave.


Edit: to insert quote.

Quoted: but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs...an enemy with no state.

Most people put him on the western side of Pakistan where the Paki government doesnt have control. The local warlords control that area, and so BL doesnt have much to fear there. Its an almost perfect hiding spot because so many people are supportive of him there, and those people are also the ones in charge there. Aside from some UAV strikes there by the CIA its a huge safe haven for them..

Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE. "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. Edit: to insert quote.

Having a pro-American ran government there is a HUGE strategic gain, and we need to make sure it doesnt turn into a terrorist safe haven like Afghanistan was. The only way to achieve that is to build up their government with them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

Culpability is no longer correlated with nationality. Unless you suggest we go after England for Richard Reid or ourselves for John Walker Lindh.

Quoted: Quoted: but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs...an enemy with no state. Most people put him on the western side of Pakistan where the Paki government doesnt have control. The local warlords control that area, and so BL doesnt have much to fear there. Its an almost perfect hiding spot because so many people are supportive of him there, and those people are also the ones in charge there. Aside from some UAV strikes there by the CIA its a huge safe haven for them..

purely speculation, him being in pakistan still...as speculative as him being in china, which would be another good place to hide...that is, if he is even alive.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs...an enemy with no state. Most people put him on the western side of Pakistan where the Paki government doesnt have control. The local warlords control that area, and so BL doesnt have much to fear there. Its an almost perfect hiding spot because so many people are supportive of him there, and those people are also the ones in charge there. Aside from some UAV strikes there by the CIA its a huge safe haven for them.. purely speculation, him being in pakistan still...as speculative as him being in china, which would be another good place to hide...that is, if he is even alive.

Its an educated guess, and the most likely spot he is...

I dont get your point.  Iraq when Saddam was in power had a track record of killing and clamping down on jihadists that was better than anyone else in the area. He might have tried to get their sympathy after 9-11 but realistically Saddams Iraq was the only secular country in the region.  Al Queda was only able to take up residence in Iraq because of the instability of the invasion.

Wouldve been better to keep Saddam in control, take out Afghanistan and maybe nuke Iran.  As well with Sadamm in power it would have kept the Persians in check and stopped thier regional ambitions such as the bullshit with Hezbollah and thier proxy war in Lebanon alittle over a year ago with Israel.

The Iraq invasion had little to do with retaliation for 9-11 or terrorism.

Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved.

1) There really isn't a 'country' responsible. in the first place, besides A-stan for letting AQ take up shop there..  But we handled that situation...

2) Because in order for this to work, you have to invade a country that you stand a chance of turning into a free republic... Iraq is the only one in the region that qualifies...

3) Because we had easy justification to invade Iraq, without trying to explain higher-level strategy to the majority of America, who slept through history class and gets their military knowledge from watching Rambo & Delta Force....

4) Because the place to be invaded HAS to be in the Middle East....

Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. 1) There really isn't a 'country' responsible. in the first place, besides A-stan for letting AQ take up shop there..  But we handled that situation... 2) Because in order for this to work, you have to invade a country that you stand a chance of turning into a free republic... Iraq is the only one in the region that qualifies... 3) Because we had easy justification to invade Iraq, without trying to explain higher-level strategy to the majority of America, who slept through history class and gets their military knowledge from watching Rambo & Delta Force....

The country most responsible for 9-11 would be Pakistan. When Bhutto was in power along with the ISS with Pakistani state funds, arms and training they litterally built the Taliban, hoping long term it would keep Afghanistan as a Pakistani puppet instead of letting India or Iran pull Kabuls strings.

Bhutto created a terrorist state soley to further Pakistans regional ambitions.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi?

Nationality is irrelevant... Yeah, they were Saudis...

But destroying the Saudi government is also one of AQ's major objectives... And their government is cooperative in terms of fighting terror (mainly because they recognize that AQ wants them dead, too)...

Reform in Saudi can be addressed by 'overflow' from victory in Iraq... Invading them would be counterproductive, and they are probably the LEAST receptive to the kind of change we need to enact IOT make this work...

Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE. "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. Edit: to insert quote.

If you put a much larger troop presence in A-stan they would not be happy, and we would lose the support of the local people, who despite what TV may say, love us. The see the few number of troops the US has there as helping them build a state and not occupying, tons more troops and they would turn on us.

Iraq does not detract from AFG at all, it distracts the news from it, thats about it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Don't forget, that at the time, everyone including the CIA, former Pres Clinton, the French intelligence service (since when have they been supportive?), the UN, and even Hillary thought that Saddam had a robust WMD program.  Little did we all know that he had been scamming us all along... bluffing a WMD program that would scare the Iranians from invasion yet keeping his country under tight control. That's another thread... I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... They wont listen. They have watched enough news to know the truth, Bush lied, people died!

Yep.

That's an awesome post, Dave_A. Spot on.

I'm going to save that for future reference.

Short version:

Iraq was the fly paper

AQ and foreign dirtbags are the flies

The US .mil is the giant can of Raid!

Quoted: but Dave_A, where is Bin Laden? Is he in a muslim controlled enclave in SW China? I think most people would agree that his capture would help more so than letting him exist wherever he chooses. His capture would help political support for the war (which we really need more of) - UNLESS the anti-war left was able to spin it as 'We have OBL, war over, let's go home'.... SO the plan of AQ all along was to be in IRAQ? And all the ME majority-Sunni states, after they got us to leave - that is what 9/11 was supposed to do... Or we encouraged AQ to move operations there? See the above post... US operations in Iraq threaten AQ's strategic support, which is SEPARATE from their operational components... Our mission is to destroy that support element... AQ sees this and attempts to defend said element by moving operational elements into Iraq to counter our actions... Shooting/bombing starts, and so on Fighting an ideology is complicated at least, look at the War on Drugs... an enemy with no state. Drug use is not an ideology... A more apt comparison would be the global war on communisim... Except that Communisim had a major state-supporter (USSR) and AQ is much more distributed and thus less vulnerable to conventional tactics

Or the War on Communisim... We won that one...

The end-plan for AQ was to be in the entire Sunni Middle East... Of course, this plan requires them to get us out of the ME first...

Which is what 9/11 was supposed to do, in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was supposed to get us out of the Pacific...

AQ failed to learn from history, and thought that maybe this time we WOULD be 'decadent & weak' like the Japs thought we were in 41...

OK Dave, I'll indulge you further.

Since you're on this self-aggrandizing quest to assume a rational defensive posture on what the current administration is doing (regardless of the well-being of the country IMO), I would like to see another write-up on HOW is it NOT strategically important to go balls out to

1.Capture Osama Bin Laden (Alive or Dead, just as the POTUS proclaimed) and "bring to justice"
2. Wipe out all core supporters and whatever bases they currently use in A-stan

...and WHAT has Iraq got to do with the primary goal - directly and decisively? FAIL

Until ALL trace of terrorist AQ activity is wiped out in A-Stan (they're a threat ARE THEY NOT?) then everything else is absolute  BullShit...and so is any pitiful attempt at RATIONALIZATION you put forth in defense of it here.
You're a tool my friend.

And in the end, we will all pay for it dearly.
Even Ron Paul won't give a shit by then.

P.S. Name-calling 'RonBot' is a cheap shot on your part.

Quoted: Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE. "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. Edit: to insert quote. I see you have no real arguements to offer... Two people who have been to AFG, myself being one, are telling you that you are wrong and we don't need more forces in Afghanistan. But I am sure, safe and sound behind your keyboard, you know sooooooo much more about the situation there than those of us who have been there.

Why dont you need more forces in Afghanistan with most Nato troops refusing to fight or making sure thier forces stay in the North or limit them to rebuilding without actual combat roles.  It would seem that if anything more troops would stabilize it alittle more.

Really how many Pashtuns are there anyways..

What you really need is to be able to freely cross into Waziristan with a large force and sort out the tribal areas once and for all.

Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE.  Wrong - you can't defeat a global insurgency any faster than we are "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, Wrong, it's a stake in AQ's heart THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO What, that he violated the ODS cease-fre? Hardly false, as he did violate said terms..., AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET What, taking Baghdad in less than a month is 'incompetant'? Once again, your ignorance of the subject is shoiwng... And as for dishonest, once again, youre parroting antiwar talking points as gospel - 'Bush lied, people died, blah blah blah', IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Or at least the duped & misinformed who think they know what's going on, because Dan Rather said so... Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. UN? In case you haven't noticed, we do our own housekeeping these days, the UN can go screw themselves... One of the best things GW has done is move US foreign policy away from the UN - we justify ourselves to no one now... Edit: to insert quote.

You didn't read any of the above, did you?

Or are you so stuck in your beliefs that you're unwilling to see the bigger picture?

Tag for when I'm sober.

M4C, you should quit while you're ahead less behind.

Quoted: OK Dave, I'll indulge you further. Since you're on this self-aggrandizing quest to assume a rational defensive posture on what the current administration is doing (regardless of the well-being of the country IMO), I would like to see another write-up on HOW is it NOT strategically important to go balls out to 1.Capture Osama Bin Laden (Alive or Dead, just as the POTUS proclaimed) and "bring to justice" 2. Wipe out all core supporters and whatever bases they currently use in A-stan ...and WHAT has Iraq got to do with the primary goal - directly and decisively? FAIL Until ALL trace of terrorist AQ activity is wiped out in A-Stan (they're a threat ARE THEY NOT?) then everything else is absolute  BullShit...and so is any pitiful attempt at RATIONALIZATION you put forth in defense of it here. You're a tool my friend. And in the end, we will all pay for it dearly. Even Ron Paul won't give a shit by then. P.S. Name-calling 'RonBot' is a cheap shot on your part.

Bin Laden is just the figurehead of AQ. It would be like killing the queen of england. She has no real power or control over things but is the political figurehead. Capturing or killing him wouldnt have any strategic advantage...

AQ only had a few actual planners. Its more important to go after those guys. You dont have to kill of all of AQ but the enablers within it that get their plans into motion. The attackers on 9/11 didnt even know their mission until the day of the attack. They have lots of followers but few leaders. A few more might pop up but its not really needed to kill off everyone under AQ...

To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'... And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East... Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy... So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950... They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them...

The problem with your theory is that the Bush administration didn't use this as the justification to invade Iraq, they trumped up the WMD threat and told us those weapons might find their way into AQs hands.  They wanted to invade Iraq even before Al Qaida was public enemy number one.  They wanted to invade Iraq after the first Gulf War and were upset that this wasn't taken care of back then.  Not only is it an ex-post-facto justification to say that Al Qaeda was the reason for going into Iraq, the intelligence has put to bed the theory that there was cooperation between AQ and the Iraqi government.  The only "link" they ever gave was the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq at some point.

Moroever, you cannot simply ignore the economic interest in controlling and protecting Iraq's oil.  In the year 2003 there would have been better countries to invade if you just wanted to kick terrorist ass than Iraq.

Quoted: I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap...

I don't know if Bush lied or not but the reasoning you are giving for the war is not the same thing he told everyone when he wanted to build up a case for invasion.  So either your theory is wrong, or your theory is correct and Bush did lie.

Quoted: OK Dave, I'll indulge you further. Since you're on this self-aggrandizing quest to assume a rational defensive posture on what the current administration is doing (regardless of the well-being of the country IMO), I would like to see another write-up on HOW is it NOT strategically important to go balls out to 1.Capture Osama Bin Laden (Alive or Dead, just as the POTUS proclaimed) and "bring to justice" Addressed in the FIRST part of my original post. Basically, it will do nothing in a strategic/military sense to hurt AQ. They will just martyr him & move on 'in his name'... 2. Wipe out all core supporters and whatever bases they currently use in A-stan Addressed as well... AQ un-assed A-stan in the early part of 2002... We are presently & primarily fighting the Taliban there (who are trying to take the government back), NOT Al Queda (which is mainly long gone)... ...and WHAT has Iraq got to do with the primary goal - directly and decisively? FAIL Addressed in the main body of the original post. Iraq IS the key to destroying AQ Until ALL trace of terrorist AQ activity is wiped out in A-Stan (they're a threat ARE THEY NOT?)Well, they're not in A-stan anymore, and the majority of terrorist activity is presently directed at trying to salvage the debacle that is their Iraqi campaign  then everything else is absolute  BullShit...and so is any pitiful attempt at RATIONALIZATION you put forth in defense of it here. Rationalization? Hardly... An explanation of what is actually going on (and flying right over your confused head), would be more accurate You're a tool my friend. Right back at you, & the rest of the duped & confused folks out there buying the lib/antiwar party line And in the end, we will all pay for it dearly. Even Ron Paul won't give a shit by then. P.S. Name-calling 'RonBot' is a cheap shot on your part.

Quoted: To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'... And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East... Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy... So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950... They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them... The problem with your theory is that the Bush administration didn't use this as the justification to invade Iraq, they trumped up the WMD threat and told us those weapons might find their way into AQs hands.  They wanted to invade Iraq even before Al Qaida was public enemy number one.  They wanted to invade Iraq after the first Gulf War and were upset that this wasn't taken care of back then.  Not only is it an ex-post-facto justification to say that Al Qaeda was the reason for going into Iraq, the intelligence has put to bed the theory that there was cooperation between AQ and the Iraqi government.  The only "link" they ever gave was the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq at some point. Moroever, you cannot simply ignore the economic interest in controlling and protecting Iraq's oil.  In the year 2003 there would have been better countries to invade if you just wanted to kick terrorist ass than Iraq. Quoted: I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... I don't know if Bush lied or not but the reasoning you are giving for the war is not the same thing he told everyone when he wanted to build up a case for invasion.  So either your theory is wrong, or your theory is correct and Bush did lie.

How could Bush have lied? Is he the one collecting and analyzing intel? Did he tell the CIA to make up the WMD threat, and then compel many other countries to also lie about it?

He has people called advisors and agency directors that go to him with that they have, and then he makes a decision based off what they tell him. Was he supposed to halo jump into Iraq and search the country to make sure the intel he got was correct?

It was a failure of our intel community based on the information they had at the time. No one made anything up, no one lied about it, and we did what we thought was best at the time and so did the majority of the politicians who voted to authorize us to invade. Of course now that a bit of pressure is on everyone about the WMD issue NO ONE will take any responsibility for it and just play the blame Bush game.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Okay. But why not invade a country more directly responsible for 9/11. Still meets your goal while actually hurting the people involved. We did that, Afghanistan.  Next on the list was Iraq.  Is this all too hard for you to understand? How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghan? How many were Iraqi? If you'd had comprehended Dave's post you would have understood we are not fighting a country but an ideology/group that has NO country. Just because some of the attackers were Saudi doesnt mean anything.

Saudi society is directly responsible for creating the terrorists directly responsible for both twin towers attacks.

There will be no shortage of islamic terrorist until we address their Saudi backers, the saudi schools that create them, the rich saudis who fund them while faking friendship with the US.

Quoted: To defeat Al Queda, you first have to get them to stand and fight - not just engage in delaying actions to cover the core elements retreat (See the early days of OEF & our work with the Northern Alliance), but to actually commit forces (such that they have) in 'defense' of something that they cannot afford to 'lose'... And the way to do this is to attack the region that provides the one component they CANNOT move (their core economic & political support)... That would be the Middle East... Whereas a failure to defend A-stan can be framed as a 'strategic maneuverl' and a 'defeat' for the US because AQ escaped (NM they ran away, they can always frame it as a 'brilliant maneuver' similar to how Saddam framed ODS in the Arab world)... A failure to defend a ME nation destroys AQ's position as the 'Defender of Islam' and severely damages their cedibility... Further, the establishment of a free Arab republic is a serious obstacle to AQ's end-goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy... So US troops in Iraq, attempting to help the Iraqis build a free republic is - to Al Queda - about the same as Russian troops in New York, attempting to set up the 'People's Republic of New York' would have been for us in 1950... They have to stop it or die trying.... Because a failure to do so WILL destroy them... The problem with your theory is that the Bush administration didn't use this as the justification to invade Iraq, they trumped up the WMD threat and told us those weapons might find their way into AQs hands. Because your average sports-bar patron watching CNN cannot understand such things (just look at the difficulty some ARFCOM members have in grasping it...), so a simpler 'public face' for the war was required.... And at the time, everyone in the international intelligence community was concerned about Saddam's quest for WMD... He was violating the cease fire from the last war, and basically screaming 'Invade me, I dare you'... He handed us a much-needed invasion location & justification for war on a silver platter... They wanted to invade Iraq even before Al Qaida was public enemy number one.  They wanted to invade Iraq after the first Gulf War and were upset that this wasn't taken care of back then.  Knowing that Saddam would be handled properly (making him comply with the cease fire or ending his rule) was a major 'plus' to electing Pres Bush, this is true... Allowing him to remain defiant was not helping our national interests one bit, as it made us appear weak to potential enemies... Not only is it an ex-post-facto justification to say that Al Qaeda was the reason for going into Iraq, the intelligence has put to bed the theory that there was cooperation between AQ and the Iraqi government. No, it's not an ex-post-facto justification. That would imply that it was made up AFTER the invasion... A more accurate statement is that 9/11 and the ensuing campaign to wipe AQ off the map took an invasion of Iraq from a 'some day, If Saddam doesn't shape up' to a 'As soon as possible, because it's the only way to win the war'... It brought it off the back burner and forward to a priority action... The only "link" they ever gave was the fact that Zarqawi was in Iraq at some point. Which doesn't matter - because the presence of operational AQ assets in Iraq is IRRELEVANT to the strategic importance of Iraq to Al Queda Moroever, you cannot simply ignore the economic interest in controlling and protecting Iraq's oil. Except that we do not control Iraq's oil, and never intended to... In the year 2003 there would have been better countries to invade if you just wanted to kick terrorist ass than Iraq. No, actually, there were not... As discussed above Quoted: I'm dealing with folks (like one of our PaulBots - M4C) who try to separate Iraq from the WOT by claiming that it 'took away from the REAL war in A-stan, and oh where is Bin Laden'... Usually followed by some sort of 'Bush lied' crap... I don't know if Bush lied or not but the reasoning you are giving for the war is not the same thing he told everyone when he wanted to build up a case for invasion.  So either your theory is wrong, or your theory is correct and Bush did lie. Or wars have multiple causes & justifications, some of which are for public/news-media consumption, and some of which are strategic & not floated to the press... Was the civil war a battle to preserve the union (greater strategic goal) or to free the slaves ('public face')? Was the Spanish American war about expanding US influence, or about the USS Maine exploding in port? And so on....

Quoted: Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE.  Wrong - you can't defeat a global insurgency any faster than we are "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, Wrong, it's a stake in AQ's heart THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO What, that he violated the ODS cease-fre? Hardly false, as he did violate said terms..., AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET What, taking Baghdad in less than a month is 'incompetant'? Once again, your ignorance of the subject is shoiwng... And as for dishonest, once again, youre parroting antiwar talking points as gospel - 'Bush lied, people died, blah blah blah', IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Or at least the duped & misinformed who think they know what's going on, because Dan Rather said so... Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. UN? In case you haven't noticed, we do our own housekeeping these days, the UN can go screw themselves... One of the best things GW has done is move US foreign policy away from the UN - we justify ourselves to no one now... Edit: to insert quote. You didn't read any of the above, did you? Or are you so stuck in your beliefs that you're unwilling to see the bigger picture?

That's pretty much it.

Quoted: Quoted: Why dont you need more forces in Afghanistan with most Nato troops refusing to fight or making sure thier forces stay in the North or limit them to rebuilding without actual combat roles.  It would seem that if anything more troops would stabilize it alittle more. Because thsoe reports are overblown for one, and for another in the areas that matter most our forces are still the ones there. It becomes a matter of many things, including diminishing returns, The infrastructure is just not there to support alot more troops, especially not the numbers we have in Iraq, and the role is just not there for them. In my time there, there was never once where any of us looked and said "we just don't have enough troops" Really how many Pashtuns are there anyways.. Plenty. Most are on our side. I fought alongside some that were great fighters and brave men who I would trust to watch my back under fire any day. Thats more than I can say for some people on here.... What you really need is to be able to freely cross into Waziristan with a large force and sort out the tribal areas once and for all. Thats a whole different matter.... and don't think that it would be even better if a well trained Afghan National Army did that for us, they hate the paki infiltrators more than we do

I see what you mean about lacking the basic infrastructure to support more troops. But dont you think that with the exception of the North and maybe the East that outside of Kabul and around Kandahar and areas leading west that in the rural areas theres not alot of control?

Unless somebody invades or controls the tribal areas, dont you think that the guerilla war will go on forever and the madrassas will continue to pump out idiots for their fight?

Do you think it would be better to split Afghanistan up along tribal demarcations in the future to make it more stable? Those guys seem to have about a 1000 years of bad history between the factions that they might not get past.

Perhaps a more improved version of the Balkans..

I've been telling people this for years. Iraq was the perfect place to take the war to them and keeep them out of our fucking back yard.

Quoted: How could Bush have lied? Is he the one collecting and analyzing intel? Did he tell the CIA to make up the WMD threat, and then compel many other countries to also lie about it? He has people called advisors and agency directors that go to him with that they have, and then he makes a decision based off what they tell him. Was he supposed to halo jump into Iraq and search the country to make sure the intel he got was correct? It was a failure of our intel community based on the information they had at the time. No one made anything up, no one lied about it, and we did what we thought was best at the time and so did the majority of the politicians who voted to authorize us to invade. Of course now that a bit of pressure is on everyone about the WMD issue NO ONE will take any responsibility for it and just play the blame Bush game.

The buck stops at his desk.  Maybe you don't think that's fair but that's part of how it works.  And besides, a lot of people have spent a lot of time analyzing the events that led up to the war and the indication is that he knew that this intel was not greatly reliable but it told him what he wanted to hear so he used it anyway.  I won't claim that he 'lied' because there is simply no way for us to know everything he knew at the time.

Quoted: You're slick - real slick Dave. You should run for prez. - or at least work for CNN. Your torturously-worded diatribe does boil down to this: But of course, it's much easier to blame Bush for 'side-tracking' into Iraq for (insert absurd reason here) than it is to actually analyze the situation... Answer: IT IS MUCH EASIER (and REQUIRED) TO BLAME THE ADMINISTRATION FOR NOT ACHIEVING RESULTS AS QUICKLY AND AS TIMELY AS POSSIBLE. "DEMOCRATIZING" OR "NATION BUILDING" IN IRAQ  IS THE MONUMENTAL SIDETRACK, THE FALSE PREMISE FOR DOING SO, AND THE DISHONEST, INCOMPETENT MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS DONE AT THE OUTSET, IS FULLY DESERVING OF THE IRE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - or at least the ones who give a shit anymore. Save your complex analysis for your upcoming U.N. speech, Mr Dave. Edit: to insert quote.

The short attention span crowd heard form.................."it lasted more than 15 minutes so I am pissed".

Man, I bet you would have hung Ike for the German counteroffensive around Christmas of 1944.

You have no idea of what you speak.

Quoted: Quoted: How could Bush have lied? Is he the one collecting and analyzing intel? Did he tell the CIA to make up the WMD threat, and then compel many other countries to also lie about it? He has people called advisors and agency directors that go to him with that they have, and then he makes a decision based off what they tell him. Was he supposed to halo jump into Iraq and search the country to make sure the intel he got was correct? It was a failure of our intel community based on the information they had at the time. No one made anything up, no one lied about it, and we did what we thought was best at the time and so did the majority of the politicians who voted to authorize us to invade. Of course now that a bit of pressure is on everyone about the WMD issue NO ONE will take any responsibility for it and just play the blame Bush game. The buck stops at his desk.  Maybe you don't think that's fair but that's part of how it works.  And besides, a lot of people have spent a lot of time analyzing the events that led up to the war and the indication is that he knew that this intel was not greatly reliable but it told him what he wanted to hear so he used it anyway.  I won't claim that he 'lied' because there is simply no way for us to know everything he knew at the time.

He is ultimately responsible yes but that doesnt mean he lied about anything. Until we got boots on the ground it was impossible to say they were actually there. Thats why they had NBC teams in there so quick...

It wasnt only our intel that said that either BTW....

ETA: To say he lied is to say he knew without a shadow of a doubt the intel was false, and that just simply wasnt the case. He might have been told it was 40-60-80% but we'll likely never know that. You go off the best intel you have...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why dont you need more forces in Afghanistan with most Nato troops refusing to fight or making sure thier forces stay in the North or limit them to rebuilding without actual combat roles.  It would seem that if anything more troops would stabilize it alittle more. Because thsoe reports are overblown for one, and for another in the areas that matter most our forces are still the ones there. It becomes a matter of many things, including diminishing returns, The infrastructure is just not there to support alot more troops, especially not the numbers we have in Iraq, and the role is just not there for them. In my time there, there was never once where any of us looked and said "we just don't have enough troops" Really how many Pashtuns are there anyways.. Plenty. Most are on our side. I fought alongside some that were great fighters and brave men who I would trust to watch my back under fire any day. Thats more than I can say for some people on here.... What you really need is to be able to freely cross into Waziristan with a large force and sort out the tribal areas once and for all. Thats a whole different matter.... and don't think that it would be even better if a well trained Afghan National Army did that for us, they hate the paki infiltrators more than we do I see what you mean about lacking the basic infrastructure to support more troops. But dont you think that with the exception of the North and maybe the East that outside of Kabul and around Kandahar and areas leading west that in the rural areas theres not alot of control? Unless somebody invades or controls the tribal areas, dont you think that the guerilla war will go on forever and the madrassas will continue to pump out idiots for their fight? Do you think it would be better to split Afghanistan up along tribal demarcations in the future to make it more stable? Those guys seem to have about a 1000 years of bad history between the factions that they might not get past. Perhaps a more improved version of the Balkans..

Trying to split up either IRQ or AFG will get you a real, popular anti-US insurgency in no time flat...

They do not want their countries chopped up...

By and large they just want to be able to self-govern as they see fit... Which is what we are letting them do...

The 'resistance' in AFG is the remnants of the Taliban & those that they are able to recruit, who want back in power....

The enemy in Iraq is not a local 'resistance' force, but rather AQ's main force, attempting to salvage their abjectly fucked up attempt to oust us from Iraq and set up a Sunni islamist state....  The local resistance is actually, at this point, on our side (thanks to AQ's brutality & incompetence, their attempt to make Iraq too fucked up for us to handle has basically turned all factions against them... The Iraqis can't agree on who get's how much oil money, or how 'federal' their new republic should be... But they pretty much ALL agree on killing Al Queda these days)...