Centerfield

Of course they are strengthened... We are at war and they have rallied against us... It is as if some people are not aware of the struggle that we must go through as a nation. Our choice is to do nothing and go back to the days of having the extreme Islamists attack us when we are not aware of it, or make the tough choice and go on the offense and face what is going to be a difficult road ahead. This is precisely what bothers me about Kerry's "nuisance" comment... Is he saying our policy before September 11th was better? It is a September 10th mentality if you will...

The part of the article that is key is that there is no next move. I have no idea what the best minds on foreign policy would say about our current conundrum.

I maintain that Iraq was wrong, wrong, wrong if our motive was to wage war on the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11. I believe that getting involved in Iraq played right into the hands of our enemy like some perverse version of reverse psychology.

We're there now and that's that. If we set a date certain for leaving, we broadcast the time and place where terrorists can gather and establish a new Afghanistan. We can't stay there indefinitely because we lend credence to the enemy's assertions and we weaken our ability to respond to other world events.

I'm looking to smart military and diplomatic minds to advise us on how to limit the fallout.

The point is not that the pre-September 11 policy was better but that the current policy is not making things better. It's sort of like saying, "do something, anything." If the invasion has made it easier for jidhadists to coalesce, you can hardly call it a successful policy.

Mathew, I don't understand the problem that conservatives have with the term nuance. You seem to equate nuance with wimpiness. During the late 80s I tired of liberalism because liberals had (and, in many cases still do have) a very simplistic approach to the world, ie, money bad, people good, military bad, UN good. It seemed to me that conservatives in many cases had a more realistic (ie, nuanced) view of the world, that there are not black and white answers and that we need to be cautious about our expectations. (Now, I am not saying that there is no black and white between us and the terrorists.) IMO, it doesn't seem unfair to argue that the particular policy was a mistake because it's lack of nuance made it counterproductive (i.e., it did not consider the effect on Iraqi domestic opinion or the threat of an insurgency, et.cet.) I don't think Kerry is wrong to be concerned about nuance. Even in WW II, we considered how particular military actions might have political consequences.

I don't agree on the "date certain" Insurgents will try to attack us every day we are there, and even chase us were we to withdraw.

What's the difference between a "date certain" and "unilateral withdrawal" or "defeat"?

I think setting a date to withdraw is appropriate when things are in control, and one can transfer authority to local authority that can survive on its own. That's not the case now.

The fascinating part about this article was that it gives us a glimpse of what the enemy is thinking. This has been completely absent from the national conversation. Bush, Kerry, etc. are basically saying that all we need to know is that the bad guys are bad guys. But it we want to defeat the enemy, we need to understand them.

Let's assume we don't have the manpower, ability, and/or sack to crush the insurgency without nuking Iraq. The harder we try, the worse it gets. Meanwhile, we've tied down our military, and we're totally losing the battle of ideology against radical Islam.

But if we leave, we hand the insurgents and terrorists a victory, making them stronger.

What to do? Here's a proposal, and I encourage criticism. It's just an idea and I don't like it myself. But I haven't heard many good options lately.

In December, the Iraq government and the US jointly announce that at the request of the sovereign Iraqi gov't, the U.S. is withdrawing forces by some particular date early next year, after Iraqi elections.

We work all the details out with Allawi before the announcement. Everyone emphasizes that this is Iraq's sovereign choice, not U.S. cut-and-run.

The agreement to withdraw gives Allawi credibility in their elections, enabling him to defeat the religious parties. Meanwhile, we feed the good Iraqis as much covert help (guns, money, etc.) as we possibly can.

The insurgents would claim to have defeated the U.S., but hell, they're going to claim that anyway.

If Kerry wins the election, he and Bush would have to work together on this. Bush probably can't make such a major change before Kerry's takes office without Kerry's agreement. Also, if they both sign off, it would limit partisan attacks.

Thoughts?

Oberon, it's my understanding that Iraq has never been a unified country. It's always been a land of three distinct sects/regions. Saddam held it together with an iron fist. So, even if we rid the country of all insurgents, what are the chances of a power struggle/civil war? I thought the constitutional signing in Iraq was a huge accomplishment. But, that was put on hold more than once because of disagreements. Without arbitrators urging them to compromise, I don't know how they will interact.

Rick:

"I think setting a date to withdraw is appropriate when things are in control, and one can transfer authority to local authority that can survive on its own. That's not the case now."

Rick, I agree. But, political considerations are causing us great difficulty in getting things under control. We can't win when we have to get religious approval to subdue a person who is obstructing peace. The first person to disrupt reconstruction and security in Iraq was an Iraqi named Sadir not an insurgent from outside of the country. Do you believe we're making progress? I thought we attacked some of these same cities more than once. I think it's because we haven't been allowed to do a clean sweep.

I think that we need to wait and see what happens with the insurgency after the elections (both theirs and ours) before we go making assumptions and drawing up schedules. The insurgents have made no bones about it--they have escalated attacks in the hopes of influencing the elections. As a result, they're burning up an awful lot of insurgents. But this is not Vietnam where they had an entire other nation (and then some) worth of trained soldiers as reserves, and the minetary and munitions support of China and the USSR.

And yes, if Bush loses they will celebrate. Prematurely, in my opinion. A Prez Kerry bounded by a GOP congress is not going to cut and run, and our military is not going to sit around and get sniped at without response. This may be a disappointment to some of the anti-war crowd, but it's reality. Much is made about us not understanding the insurgents, but the inverse is also true--they don't really understand us. If they did, we wouldn't be there, or in Afghanistan.

Oberon grumbled
> ... This has been completely absent from the national conversation.
> Bush, Kerry, etc. are basically saying that all we need to know is
> that the bad guys are bad guys. But it we want to defeat the enemy,
> we need to understand them.

... you know, I could swear I heard Bush repeatedly mention his analysis of what the terrorists are thinking, based on the alleged Zarqawi memo. Said memo paints a definite picture of Al Qaeda fear.

If the memo is genuine, many al-qaeda-linked groups are scared to death of the threat to them from democratization. That's why they're spending everything in Iraq, including recruiting zillions of untrained recruits to go and and die for The Cause. Before the dual invasions, they were able to operate at their desired tempo, in their desired spots, adding money to their war chest, and send in trained people like the guys who did 9/11.

> Let's assume we don't have the manpower, ability, and/or sack to crush
> the insurgency without nuking Iraq. The harder we try, the worse it gets.

We certainly have the ability. We outnumber them at least 10:1 on the ground, and one Coalition trooper is more than 10x better than one rebel. Holding off has purely been politics. It may have been motivated by the observation that the rebels and terrorists are deeply politically unpopular, and that it's important to keep it that way.

> ... Meanwhile, we've tied down our military, and we're totally
> losing the battle of ideology against radical Islam.

...tied down military, check, but if we're losing the battle of ideology, why is radical Islam polling so badly in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why did Karzai win overwhelmingly? Why are moderate clerics polling best in Iraq?

Radical Islam has always done badly. It's never been a particularly successful political force. It's a misconception that radical political Islam has ever been popular. The Taliban didn't come to power through elections. Radical Islam has never won an election to my awareness. People always say that if we allow such and such country to democratize, they will elect a radical Islamic government. That's not likely, but maybe it becomes more likely if the radicals convince the public that they are standing up to the United States.

Look, I'm skeptical about the idea of setting a date certain and getting out given the obvious weakness of the Iraqi government. But I am concerned about these military offensives that seem to alienate the populace. I understand the argument that if we clean out the insurgents, this clears the way for reconstruction and utopia on earth. But, clearly, one of the goals of the insurgents is to get the US to react militarily in such a way as to discredit (even more) both the occupation and the Iraqi government. As for Bush's analysis, it seems that pretty much everything the Administration says is for domestic consumption. I would hardly put much stock in their analysis of the militants, especially given their track record of misstating intelligence.

I have no solution. But a little realistic analysis by the Administration instead of the BS they feed us daily would help.

I agree with Tully; the insurgents (and, for that matter, Al Quaida itself) does not understand the way Americans think. Efforts at intimidation (such as beheadings) are likely to piss people off more than scare them.

Jon Kay -- sorry, but "they're afraid of democracy" and "they hate our freedom" is hardly a usedful analysis of the radical Islamist ideology.

Maybe we can beat the insurgency, maybe not. I wrote "assume" because I was describing a possible scenario. I wasn't arguing that we can't do it.

If you can point me to any independent expert who think that invading Iraq was a smart move in fighting Islamic terrorism, or that we're winning the the battle of ideologies, I'd be happy to read it. The evidence sure seems to say the opposite.