Sorry, I didn't see any evidence. Do you have numbers that say that attacks are down, bombings are down, casualties are down? Do you have some document or link that confirms your allegation that most of the country is secure? There is evidence to suggest the contrary. Internal Rifts Plague Iraqi Security Forces Iraq Coalition Casualty Trends Deadliest Day in Months Blunt Assessment by Top American Commander Yes, I admit much cynicism regarding Iraq becoming a democracy, but I have seen this scenario before and I foresee an Iraq Nam situation in our future. They have been given the opportunity that you advocate and are taking some small steps but are far, far from success. Yes, we must support this effort if real, measurable progress is being made. But an endless committment in the face of Iraqi foot-dragging and an ongoing civil war seems very imprudent for us.
They also tried to attack us on a 9/11 scale in the Millenium Bombings, but were caught. Bin Ladins signature is big, coordinated attacks that gain maximum attention. This is why we haven't seen suicide bombers and sniper attacks here. Such petty terrorism is so common and frequent in the world now that it would quickly fail to be a major story or danger for the US. Al Qaida had bigger ideas at play in their bombings. They thought to cripple the US economy in the WTC attack. No doubt they are planning another big one. This the vital reason why we shouldn't become distracted by every petty dictator in the world or the endless supply of undereducated, over-religious islamist martyrs infesting the middle east. Suicide vests and car bombs can not really hurt the United States in the big picture. But well-financed, educated, and ruthless plotters like Bin Ladin and Al Zacharry are trying to damage the American economy (they failed in 9/11) or to intimidate the US military (Pentagon & USS Cole Bombing, also failed) or to affect US diplomacy (Embassy Bombings, also a failure). But they succeeded in making Americans feel insecure for the first time since the Cold War. This may have backfired in that they did not expect the US to immediately overthrow the Taliban and eject them from Afghanistan. After beating the Soviets, they had delusions that they could not be beaten in the mountains. They also succeeded in hurting US relations with the Islamic world and its own important allies by goading the US President into the misguided invasion of Iraq. Al Qaida is the prime threat, not the million local Arab radicals with a few grenades and assault rifles that cannot even find an American to attack. We can't go after each of them, rather we must hold the countries in which they operate accountable for their actions. We can defeat a nation easily, as long as we are not foolish enough to try to occupy the place.
They didn't attack France did they? The attacks were on major U.S. allies. So yes, I think they were attacks on U.S. interests.
I agree whole-heartedly. That is why I think the invasion of Iraq was a bad move. My fear is that we have not diminished Al Qaida's capabilities as much as we think we have.
If you're right, then they're a collection of some of the dumbest mammals on the planet. Seriously. How long should it take to devise ultimately simple attacks? Probably weeks, maybe a couple of months. But they haven't done jack on our soil in four and a half years. We've either diminished their capacity or they're about as intelligent as head of lettuce. I tend to think it's both.
, we lob a few Under your plan though Red, everything is always in a completely reactionary fashion. We get bombed in Las Vegas, lose a hotel and 10,000 people, then we find them say in Yemen, attack and kill them. Then 4 years from then, they attack L.A. kill 50,000, and if we're unlucky enough to have another Clintonesque Pres., we lob a few cruise missiles at Syria that does nothing. See, that's where I think you and I, and half the country, differ on geopolitical strategy. We either attack, take over and change their political policies and work to make other countries see the light of democracy, or we are dealing with these attacks by a few militants with grenades, all the time on our soil. Things have to be looked at from a sky-high view on the longterm....not a view of this week and what happened in Baghdad. In the grand scheme, a free Iraq in the middle of a turbulent middle eastern world that is undergoing extreme struggles themselves, is a good thing IMO. Those few militants with grenades you mention are the problem friend. Next thing, those grenades didn't get the desired effect, next they use a dirty bomb cause we didn't listen. We've already done it your way (i.e USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 1st WTC bombing and we did nothing)......now we're trying another.
Well, that idea seems nice, but it doesn't take into consideration whether it's feasible. Can we ever really change their culture? Can we force them to be democracies? I agree that a democracy in the Middle East is a great idea, whether it's possible is what I'm not sure about.
Where did I say that? Nowhere. What I said was we need to be hitting the people who are proven dangerous to us, not just pick a muslim dictatorship that tried to kill George's dad and declare it to be the main front on the war on terror. Well, you're dreaming now, aren't you? Yet none of those things have happened, LC. No roadside bombs, no rocket grenades, no suicide bombers. Big Al Qaida-style attacks have happened. Al Qaida is the enemy, not world Islam, and certainly not every pissant militant with a gun in the middle east. Iraqi insurgents are not the ones seeking WMD's, it is Al Qaida international terrorists. This notion that every angry arab is allied against us is just wrong. They may hate us but their local problems are more important to them. Only Al Qaida has taken their terrorism against the US. Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah are only concerned with Israel. The Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis were only concerned with each other until we came and united them against us. Nope. Action was taken after each of those incidents. The WTC1 bombers were caught and prosecuted as were the Millenium bombers. Clinton tried to kill Bin Ladin twice with big airstrikes after the USS Cole and embassy bombings . . . just as Bush tried to do in Pakistan last week. My way would have been to ignore Iraq and to have gone after Al Qaida in Pakistan following Afghanistan and kill them all using airpower and special operations forces. Letting bin Ladin and Company get away while we waste thousands of lives and billions of dollars invading and occupying a country that never attacked us and posed no serious threat was just lousy leadership by our president.
You make an excelant point. Every democracy on this planet was created when a people decided for themselves that they wanted democracy.
