Captain's Quarters -

"Osama has lost the thread in Iraq, and thanks to the lunacy of his followers, will find it very difficult to build his credibility there again. He's losing, and he knows it, and this tape confirms that he realizes what that means for the overall war on terror."

so . . .

(The Democrats have) lost the thread in Iraq, and thanks to the lunacy of (their) followers, will find it very difficult to build (their) credibility again. (The Democrats are) losing, and (they) know it, and this tape (should show the Democrats) what that means for the overall war on terror.

It can all turn on a dime. We need those lunatics to be quite into 09 and you can bet that the democrats will try another Turkey to destablize things.

Take George Soros' number off of Rahm Emmanuel's speed dial and we might have a chance.

Quagmire, blowback and overstretch happens, even to bad guys.

The risible (but contemptible) likes of Harry Reid can never grasp this.

Cordially...

Now that Osama has given the OK, I am sure we will see Hillary, Reid, Nancy, et al, all say how they knew the surge was woking despite Bush. Afterall, when General Betray.........errr Petraeus, the man they approved unanimously said it was working it had to be.

And not to believe him would require a willing suspension of disbelief. Or something equally pompous.

History remembers the final result and the aftermath.

Everything else is smoke and noise.

Bush/Cheney resolved to unleash some whopazz on the jihadis after looking upon the ruins of lower Manhattan. I expected no Presidential power to be left not pushed to the limit to go after these clowns, everywhere.

Osama is hurtin' and the jihadi bodies are stacking up like cordwood.

"Now that Osama has given the OK, I am sure we will see Hillary, Reid, Nancy, et al, all say how they knew the surge was woking despite Bush."

Unfortunately, I believe they will a) Ignore it and b) Press on with their same old 2006 talking points.

Because even as well as it's going, it's probably not going to be completely sewed up by November 2008.

And with the MSM's help, the American people will not be adequately informed of this success.

People familiar with bin Laden's voice say the tape appeared to be authentic, although there was no reference to any event that would indicate when it was recorded.

Anybody here remember a characer named Hari Selden from Asimov's Foundation trilogy?
Without getting into the plot, Selden pre-recorded videos of himself discussing 'current' events based on his scientific predictions.

Is it possible that Osama might have pre-recorded a few of his own 'predictions' to cover both good and bad scenarios? That might explain why he's careful to avoid referencing actual current events...

Either that, or he's not the canny self-promoter some would have us believe.

Al-Qaeda was made famous by President Bush and because Osama Bin Laden was able to manipulate the press and master the art of viral video. At this point, I feel like I am on my 7th or 8th donut, and I dont really care what Osama has to say anymore.

What do i mean by Donuts!?...

http://www.hotconflict.com/blog/2007/10/muslims-united-.html

Harry Reid and OBL both agree - the war is lost.

John:

Here's what I just composed. Couldn't agree with you more!

"Osama has begun singing a different tune..."

As Voltaire pointed out, "Anything too stupid to be said is sung."

I now agree with Senator Harry Reid that "the Iraq War is lost." What Reid left out was that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his brutal tactics lost it.

Arch

Great minds think alike.

It can all turn on a dime.

This is one of the central aspects of war, look at the mere six months from Pearl Harbor to Midway.

Even if the MSM did not have an explict agenda in their coversge of the war, they generally have no understanding of the history of war with which to analyze this, or any other, conflict.

"Relationship of convenience" is right. In my opinion, anybody who believes Iraqis will be our friends when all is said and done is a fool. Islam teaches that no Muslim should take an unbeliever for a friend, and that all good things come from Allah. That's why Muslims never give thanks or credit to unbelievers for their help: the unbelievers didn't help the Muslims, Allah did, and saying "thanks" might imply friendship or debt is owed to an unbeliever, which is forbidden. That, and all agreements between Muslims and unbelievers are temporary, to be ignored as soon as it is in the Muslim's benefit to do so, as Muhammad showed by his many examples. They will turn on us in a heartbeat should al-Qaeda be defeated.

Interesting to hear confirmation from UBL himself, attempting to re-unify "the troops", so to speak. This echos an analysis by Ray Robison in American Thinker on 9/28 discussing the strategy to split the various factions of the World Islamic Front and the global Islamic jihad movement at their various foundations all over the Middle East.

Much as so many like to believe, Iraq, Afghanisan, Zawahiri's Egyptian jihadists, North Africa, Pakistan are not separate war fronts, but a twisted thread of strategy and mayhem for the overall war.

Now, if America can "unite" her own, we could get somewhere quicker.

although there was no reference to any event that would indicate when it was recorded.

There's no references to any events because he's dead! This is just another feeble attempt by Al Qaeda to gleen some remarks from one of bin laden's hundreds of speeches and try to make them timely and important.

bin laden's carcass has been feeding Tora Bora worms for quite some time now.

Paul in NJ says:

"Is it possible that Osama might have pre-recorded a few of his own 'predictions' to cover both good and bad scenarios? That might explain why he's careful to avoid referencing actual current events..."

As Fight4TheRight says, this would indicate Ozzie has been at cave temperature for quite some time.

It certainly would have been easy enough for him to prove on video that he was still alive in the years since Tora Bora-all he would have to do is hold up a copy of the Boston Globe from 2004 when the Red Sox won their first World Series in 86 years.

Left to their own devices these crazies will burn their own bridges as has happened in Egypt (where this brand of radical Islam started). That paticular tumor excised itself, after they lost popular support they eventually turned to killing each other.

I have it on good advice that old bin's batteries have gone dead on his video camera, which he dropped after catching a glimpse of predator missile coming over a ridge, and that is why we have never seen him reading his favorite newspaper the NYTimes.

Assuming that al qaeda continues on the ropes and eventually dies in Iraq the Dem spin next summer/late spring will be that the success is due to their haranguing the President, by driving out the neocons and Rumsfeld in particular, such that Bush had to change his strategy. A strategy that they(dems) had suggested prior to hostilities. They were forced to be against the war until Bush made the changes. I mean what choice would these "moral" liberals have?

With the changes now fully implemented(summer 08) we now support the war fully. Hillary will announce that was the war she thought she was voting for along with inspectors of course.

Mark my words, you will hearing this if Iraq continues to improve. It will be just a bigger version of Reid's spin on Rush's ebay letter. Once the editorial pages kick in the rest will be history.

Bob Smith spews: "In my opinion, anybody who believes Iraqis will be our friends when all is said and done is a fool. Islam teaches that no Muslim should take an unbeliever for a friend, and that all good things come from Allah. That's why Muslims never give thanks or credit to unbelievers for their help: the unbelievers didn't help the Muslims, Allah did, and saying "thanks" might imply friendship or debt is owed to an unbeliever, which is forbidden.
*********************************
http://tinyurl.com/zbzyw

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall' Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months.

To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city...

This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism...

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven’t the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families.

NAJIM ABDULLAH ABID AL-JIBOURI
Mayor of Tall 'Afar, Ninewa, Iraq

Osama still thinks he can win. He's got a very vocal minority in both the House and the Senate on his side, as well several Presidential candidates (Mssrs Obama and Paul, to be specific).

When he hears their voices on CSPAN, he's informed that the efforts by his henchmen to hurt the USA are bearing fruit. We are fragmented; his organization is unified. Goliath is a very big target, with many places to hurt, while David is very small. David always wins; Goliath always loses.

He hears every day from our news media how Americans deplore the death of our servicemen, and how the majority of Americans believe that their sacrifice is not worth the pain. He hears every day from our own news media how criminal our troops are toward the oppressed Iraqi people. Finally, he hears that America is financially bankrupt, because we cannot support our beloved social programs and the war simultaneously.

With all that news streaming from his computer monitor, how can he and his peers not feel heartened about their prospects.

As Osama himself has said, the war will be won by those with the strongest will. Our will is up for grabs.

It's a testament to just how great this country is that after four years of one major political party actively trying to sabotage the war effort and the other major party basically standing around with its collective thumb up its ass while the war got nowhere that we still hold all the high cards.

Funny, I thought Iraq had NO connection to the war on terrorism and Al Qaeda in particular, and yet time and time again Osama and his cohorts go out of their way to point out how this is the prime front in which al qaeda will face and is fighting the Great Satan.
And now apparently, Osama is under the impression that his group of jihadis is actually losing in Iraq, thus his latest message to try to rally his troops there.

But how could they be there when Iraq is a diversion from the REAL war on terror. I'd get my facts straight if i were Osama.

/sarc

I had an interesting thought reading through all these comments...

Is it possible that all the sniping the Democrats have been doing during Iraq War II might actually have helped our cause?

Think about it...What if the insurgents saw a united front against them, and just went home to regroup, to await the day U.S. forces went home? Then, when the shooting gallery was cleared of all serious resistance, came back in force to claim Iraq for Islamo-fascism?

Instead, the Democrat's bleating gave OBL and AQI false hope that if they only persevered, they would be victorious. This false hope kept them charging headlong into the mall of heavily armed, well-trained, fighting-mad American soldiers eager to send them wholesale to paradise.

We are fortunate indeed to afford the luxury of sending volunteers off to fight our enemies on foreign land. What a deal: The Iraqis get their Freedom and Liberty, while we get a free-fire zone to kill our enemies without risking collateral damage on U.S. soil.

Times are not good for the Islamofascists anywhere in the Arab world.

The roster of where they have lost is impressive:
Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, India.

They are hanging on in Sudan, Syria and Iran. But Syria and Iran are economic basket cases. Hamas and Hezb'Allah, Syria and Taliban drain the Iranian Theocracy and bankrupt the Persians along with their own ill fated Manhattan Project.

When will the Persians collapse with 100% inflation, gasoline and food rationing, and two guerrilla wars in their Provinces? And meanwhile Oil output falls from under investment...

The last bastion of Al Queda is the Waziristan and US Democrat Party hierarchy. But even there the dopes are getting harder to find excuses that make any sense.

No one seems toot notice that Al Queda became so brutal when they created their own Tet Offensive in time for the 2006 US elections. Like the original Tet, it wasn't sustainable, cost them heavily, and they shot their wad.

Posted by Bob Smith | October 22, 2007 5:21 PM

"Relationship of convenience" is right. In my opinion, anybody who believes Iraqis will be our friends when all is said and done is a fool. Islam teaches that no Muslim should take an unbeliever for a friend, and that all good things come from Allah. That's why Muslims never give thanks or credit to unbelievers for their help: the unbelievers didn't help the Muslims, Allah did, and saying "thanks" might imply friendship or debt is owed to an unbeliever, which is forbidden. That, and all agreements between Muslims and unbelievers are temporary, to be ignored as soon as it is in the Muslim's benefit to do so, as Muhammad showed by his many examples. They will turn on us in a heartbeat should al-Qaeda be defeated.

.....

Here is the link to Maliki's address to Congress in July 06.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5584507

Here are some excerpts which are relevant to Bob Smith's assertion.
----

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's address to the U.S. Congress was delivered through an interpreter. The English-language transcript was provided by Federal News Service.

PRIME MIN. AL-MALIKI: (Extended Applause.) In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Your Excellency the speaker of the House, Mr. Vice President, honorable ladies and gentlemen, members of Congress, it is with great pleasure that I am able to take this opportunity to be the first democratically and constitutionally elected prime minister of Iraq to address you, the elected representatives of the American people. And I thank you for affording me this unique chance to speak at this respected assembly.

Let me begin by thanking the American people, through you, on behalf of the Iraqi people, for supporting our people in ousting dictatorship. Iraq will not forget those who stood with her – with him and who continues to stand with her in times of need
The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom, and we are in this vanguard for defending the values of humanity. (Applause.)

Contary to what's come in our Koran, which says we have created of you -- of male and female and made you tribes and families that you know each other, surely noblist of you in the sight of God is the best conduct. The truth is that terrorism has no religion. Our faith say that who kills an innocent as it has killed all mankind.

Thousands of lives were tragically lost in September 11th, where -- when these imposters of Islam reared their ugly head. Thousands more continue to die in Iraq today at the hands of the same terrorists who show complete disregard for human life.

Your loss on that day was the loss of all mankind, and our loss today is loss for all free people. (Applause.)
…
And wherever human kind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all humanity. It is your duty and our duty to defeat this terror. Iraq is the front line is this struggle, and history will prove that the sacrifices of Iraqis for freedom will not be in vain.

Iraqis are your allies in the war on terror. (Applause.)

...

And history will record their bravery and humanity. The fate of our country and yours is tied. Should democracy be allowed to fail in Iraq and terror permitted to triumph, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.

...

The people of Iraq will not forget your continued support as we establish a secure, liberal democracy. Let 1991 never be repeated, for history will be more unforgiving. (Applause.)
The coming few days are difficult and the challenges are considerable. Iraq and America both need each other to defeat the terror engulfing the free world. In partnership, we will be triumphant because we will never be slaves to terror, for God has made us free.

Trust that Iraq will be a grave for terrorism and terrorists. (Applause.) Trust that Iraq will be the graveyard for terrorism and terrorists, for all -- for the good of all humanity.
Thank you very much. (Cheers, extended applause.)

....

Check & Mate Bob. BTW, Mr. Paul's campaign is about to go the way of al Qaeda in Iraq

Perhaps many Iraqis will never be our "friends," but, in the grand scheme of things, this will be irrelevant. We need only ensure they won't be our enemies.

Indeed, maybe we'll end up being "Don Corleone" to the Iraqi "Buonasera." They may not like us, but they will respect us. And they'll know, without question, that if their enemies become our enemies...then they, too, will be feared.

Not a bad way to go. ;)

In Ramadi, the locals named a police station after a dead US officer, Travis Patriquin, who was instrumental in starting up the awakening.

One effect, intended or not, of this war is to get through, even to Muslims, who the bad guys are. They need more direct experience than one would expect, but they appear to have learned. Letting them live under al Q seems to have made the point.

Problem is, if this fails, then the racists' view that some of the lesser breeds are unsuited for democracy will be validated. Boy, it would be tough to square that among the multicultis.

James Larson wrote, "Is it possible that all the sniping the Democrats have been doing during Iraq War II might actually have helped our cause?"

That's seemed obvious for some time. Several people commenting later in that last thread seem to agree.

Neptunus Lex' experienced military opinion points out the military weakness of the enemy.

@ Bob Smith: One of the great embedded bloggers had a video of the Marines going on patrol with 1920 Revolutionary Brigade, who weeks earlier were insurgents killing Americans. There was a firefight with al Qaeda types. When you fight and shed blood with people, that creates an intense relationship. I don't care what the Koran says about it.

Since there's no functioning government in Iraq, I don't expect Bush to declare victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq while he's in office.

If he does, he'll have to find another scapegoat for why there is no functioning government there.

Way to go Frank. Ignore the subject matter of the post and insult Bush. That'll show him!

My comment is on subject because I am pointing out that the subject matter of the artice is phony. The message of the neocons is that violence in Iraq is caused by Osama Bin Laden.

He's a nice scapegoat so that they don't have to take responsibility for what they caused there.

Unfortunely, I was hoping UBL would make an appearance with that ghastly beard just in time for Holoween, but instead we get an audio tape with some washed up guy mumbling about his disunited group on hard times. His "fifteen minutes" are about up.

The Republican Party I grew up with, the party of Ronald Reagan, is in trouble.

Everybody has known for years that Iraq is in civil war and that foreigners are a tiny minority of the insurgents.

Neocons will do and say anything, no matter how far-fetched or how untrue, to keep this thing going.

It is past time to address the essentially parasitic – and destructive – character of the neoconservative virus in the GOP.

For these guys, it's rule or ruin: like liberals, they are mainly concerned with maintaining power within a given apparatus -- at the moment the Republican Party.

They don't care about regaining control of Congress (they gave up on that distant possibility a long time ago) or saving a conservative vote on fiscal and other matters. They care about one issue and one issue only: war and more war, as far as the eye can see. When they've run the GOP into the ground and reduced it to a mostly regional party, they'll abandon the dried-up husk and emigrate back to where they came from – the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, where they can join Joe Lieberman, Joshua Muravchik, and Hillary Clinton's neoconservative fan club in ginning up a war with Iran.

Frank must be a fan of that red-headed fellow on MythBusters.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

The no functioning government in Iraq,

is in fact functioning better than the majority party in Congress.

Even if the governemrnt of Iraq is having difficulty reconciling competing factions, they are not constantly attacking their leader and trying to lose a war- as is your party, Frank.

Since there's no functioning government in Iraq,

Is this comment supposed to be taken seriously?

You can spend ten seconds at Google and find yourself with days worth of reading material and photographs that prove, to any rational human being, that the Iraqi government does indeed exist and is functioning.

I haven't read hundreds of dispatches from Michael Yon, Blackfive, Michael Totten, Bill Roggio, and others, to let such a ridiculous comment pass.

The Republican Party I grew up with, the party of Ronald Reagan, is in trouble.

When you're done claiming the mantle of Reagan simply because you say you deserve it, can someone else play with it please?

Everybody has known for years that Iraq is in civil war and that foreigners are a tiny minority of the insurgents.

Let's try to keep the red herrings away.

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/resistance-is-futile.htm

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-787MNA?OpenDocument

Neocons will do and say anything, no matter how far-fetched or how untrue, to keep this thing going.

Every time your hands touch a keyboard you do nothing but lie.

It is past time to address the essentially parasitic – and destructive – character of the neoconservative virus in the GOP.

It is past time that someone reacts to your supercilious, condescending bullshit with the derisive scorn it deserves.

For these guys, it's rule or ruin: like liberals, they are mainly concerned with maintaining power within a given apparatus -- at the moment the Republican Party.

That is generally how an ideological faction tries to see its policies implemented, gaining control of a political organization, yes. It is amazing how you managed to put a negative spin on that.

They don't care about regaining control of Congress (they gave up on that distant possibility a long time ago) or saving a conservative vote on fiscal and other matters. They care about one issue and one issue only: war and more war, as far as the eye can see.

That must be why I keep reading these articles about the young guns of the House GOP who are dedicated to fiscal conservatism and re-taking the Congress. They happen to support the war.

And remember, if you don't agree with Frank, you are interested in one thing: war. Not war for any kind of purpose, just bloodshed for its own sake, as causing bloodshed requires use of power, and obtaining and using power in the most base of ways is our only goal. Literally, we are all bloodthirsty savages addicted to causing death and destruction.

When they've run the GOP into the ground and reduced it to a mostly regional party, they'll abandon the dried-up husk and emigrate back to where they came from – the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, where they can join Joe Lieberman, Joshua Muravchik, and Hillary Clinton's neoconservative fan club in ginning up a war with Iran.

It's time someone said it to Frank: shut the fuck up.

Frank's another paid MoveOn blog graffiti operative - "life long Republican" but....

you know the drill

Bob Smith: "Relationship of convenience" is right. In my opinion, anybody who believes Iraqis will be our friends when all is said and done is a fool. Islam teaches that no Muslim should take an unbeliever for a friend, and that all good things come from Allah.

While I'm sure that there are Muslims who do indeed take this view, I can say from personal experience with Muslim friends of mine that not all of them do.

At any rate, MarkJ hits the nail on the head:

Perhaps many Iraqis will never be our "friends," but, in the grand scheme of things, this will be irrelevant. We need only ensure they won't be our enemies.

I would also like to address this by Richard Aubrey:

Problem is, if this fails, then the racists' view that some of the lesser breeds are unsuited for democracy will be validated. Boy, it would be tough to square that among the multicultis.

This comment interests me for a couple of reasons. First, we nasty ol' conservatives are supposed to be racists while liberals are supposed to just looooooove everybody regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, Coke vs. Pepsi, etc, etc. It seems logical, therefore, that we conservatives would be the ones who would have no faith in the ability of the Iraqis (i.e. little brown people) to form a democracy while liberals would be tripping over themselves to assure us that we've only got to give them a CHANCE. In fact, the converse is true: we conservatives think that democracy is for EVERYBODY, while liberals seem to think that democracy is only for "the right people" (i.e. us and maybe the Western Europeans).

Actually, this gets to a more fundamental point, one that has been brought up by many commenters here in the past: LIBERALS DO NOT VALUE DEMOCRACY AT ALL. It's untidy, inefficient, and too many people will make the "wrong" decisions. They'll be selfish with their money and spend it on luxuries that pollute Mother Gaia. They need "the right people" (i.e. liberals) to take charge and see to it that the money gets spent wisely so that everybody drives hybrid cars and has universal health care.

The prospect of democracy in Iraq must be a collosal nightmare for the left:

1. George Bush (spit!) might (gag) WIN. Horrors!

2. "Neo-cons" who believe in that guff "that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" might be proved right. DOUBLE HORRORS!

3. Iraq would be a secular democracy that is wealthy and prosperous, and it's people might (attack of the vapors) start driving SUV's and engage in (about to pass out) CAPITALISM!

The horror. The horror. The horror...

While this is all good, there is still another problem we need to address: western nihilism. Even if the current jihadi/terrorist groups are brought down, it doesn't change the fact that too much of the western world will bend over backwards for any & all non-white man/homosexual/feminist groups with an axe to grind & the intelligence to do it right. If this isn't fixed, then there will always be groups, terrorist, jihadi, or otherwise, doing a good job of tearing us to pieces.

Bob Smith spews: "In my opinion, anybody who believes Iraqis will be our friends when all is said and done is a fool. Islam teaches that no Muslim should take an unbeliever for a friend, and that all good things come from Allah. That's why Muslims never give thanks or credit to unbelievers for their help: the unbelievers didn't help the Muslims, Allah did, and saying "thanks" might imply friendship or debt is owed to an unbeliever, which is forbidden."

Have you never been to college, or had Muslim colleagues? I have, and I have to say I trust some of them to the same extent I trust anyone in Corporate America.

As far as that goes, Mohammad was a trader, and having been a trader myself, I know that though you don't have to like the people you trade with, you generally come to respect the ones who deserve it regardless of color or creed, and you also DO NOT EVER flake on a trade or people will never trade wtih you..this has probably not changed in 1500 years.

"I can make more money with this guy than without him" is not a bad basis for a relationship, and it seems to be working between the West and the UAE, Kuwait, Tunisia, Muslim India, etc. I'd have included Turkey, but our bats--t crazy Congress decided to alienate them for no obvious reason condeming something that happened 90+ years ago.

Besides, Christianity teaches “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). By that I assume you think it's expected for Christians to avoid, cheat, and betray non-Christians? Because that's not the way I personally operate, though I consider myself a Christian.

Captain:

Can someone tell me who was the driving force behind a formal declaratin of Occupation?

It was not the occupation which drove a lot of Iraqis against the Coalition, it was declaring an occupation.

As soon as the Coalition said they were occupiers, instead of liberators, they became the enemy to any Iraqi nationalist. They gave credance to the lie that the Coalition was there to take over Iraq from the Iraqis.

The decision to declare an occupation subverted all that President Bush had aimed for, a free and democratic Iraq.

Bush has been ill served by his advisors in a number of ways. The advice which led to this decision could well be judged by the historians to have been some of the worst given to any President.

PS: I would suggest that a formal declaration of Occupation was not required for the Coalition to accept the responsibility of running the country until a new government was in place.

The situation in Iraq is a lot more complex than you folk are allowing for. US engagement in Iraq has certainly been more successful under Petraeus than his predecessors, he is at least using classical anti-insurgency tactics.

The problem is that he has about a fifth the number of troops that would be needed to apply such tactics. The blunder of shutting down the Iraqi army still has consequences.

People sould hope that the reason is not the surge since there simply are not enough troops to continue the surge without conscription or making tours even longer than they are. Bush shows no sign of making either decision.

The other factor in the mix is that the US has been arming the Sunni factions it previously opposed. For the time being they are eliminating their Sunni rivals, which includes the small number of foreign AQ Jihadis. But this is merely deferring the day of reconning with the Shi'a.

The Shi'a meanwhile have control of the government and are playing the US and Iran off against each other while trying to dissuade the US from launching a war against Iran.

The reason it has gone somwhat quieter is that it is now taken for granted that the US will be leaving in 2009 and the only thing that there is to play for is position after the withdrawal. The Shi'a hold the upper hand because the numbers are on their side and they can expect support from Iran.

Whatever way this plays out the net result of the war is that Iran emerges as the regional superpower. Bombing Iran only makes the problem worse. The mullahs didn't mind seeing a million people die during the Iran-Iraq war. Only a liar or a fool would suggest that they would not retaliate if attacked. They have no shortage of US military targets and the fifth largest arsenal of missiles in the world. They can easily close the Straits of Hormz to shipping. They can certainly obliterate the green zone. They may or may not be able to sink a capital ship. It depends on whether the US countermeasures are effective against their Chinese design missiles. The Iranian missiles did defeat the Israeli systems.

So even though there are fewer casualties the situation is far from good and there is no reason to beleive that this is a long term trend.

James Larson-

I had an interesting thought reading through all these comments...

Is it possible that all the sniping the Democrats have been doing during Iraq War II might actually have helped our cause?

I think for this to be the case, you would have to believe that there were a fixed number of insurgents. On the other hand, I believe that the words of the professional Democrats recruited more jihadis to the war for a net loss to our side.

Still, an interesting thought.

Phill,

While Petreaus may not have enough American troops for classic counterinsurgency, there are around 400,000 Iraqi troops and police to help out and that number is growing. They are not as effective and some units are downright worthless but they are getting better. The original army had already disinigrated so there was really no choice but to rebuild from scratch.

Al Queda made Iraq their central front in their war against civilazation and they lost big time. They have lost militarily and they have lost strategically since thier fellow Sunnis have turned on them. The entire muslim world has seen first hand the barbarism of Al Queda and is now rejecting them accordingly.

Al Qaeda is not committed long term to Iraq in any sense. Its source of funding is the Afghan opium trade.

In order to eliminate Al Qaeda you have to eliminate them in Afghanistan. Specifically you have to eliminate Al Zawahiri who is the brains behind the operation as well as OBL. If that happens AQI ceases to function overnight, otherwise they will continue to find some publicity seeking faction who will take the name of their franchise.

The bigger concern would be if the occupation continues and AQI manages to form a beachhead for Al Quaeda's efforts to topple the Saudi monarchy. That is what OBL has been after all along. His real objection to the US bases was that they got in the way of his plans for a coup.

It isn't going to happen of course, but Saudi concern that it might is the reason that they are unlikely to fund an insurgent campaign against the Shi'a after the US withdraws regardless of how much influence Iran holds at that point.

The US military is too far stretched at this point for an attack against Iran to result in anything other than a catastrophe for US interests. Iran has modern weapons, a larger army and home ground advantage. It isn't going to be a cakewalk.

Just how many troops do you need for a clasic counter insurgency?

It would seem to me that the number of troops is less relevant than changing the minds of the populace. The populace is changing without the far greater number of troops.

Phill Hallam-Baker: The blunder of shutting down the Iraqi army still has consequences.

Would somebody please explain to me why this canard has enjoyed such currency? Aside from liberal stupidity, that is. It seems to me that arguing that we should have kept Saddam's army intact is akin to arguing that we should have keep the Wermacht and Imperial Japanese militaries intact after World War II, or the Confederate army intact after the Civil War (I actually have some older relatives who have fond memories of the KKK and wish that odious band was still vibrant and powerful because they "kept order", too).

Do people really, really think that maintaining an organization that was used by Saddam and his cronies to oppress and murder their own people was a good idea? I mean, honestly: how stupid can you be???

davod: Just how many troops do you need for a clasic counter insurgency?

It would seem to me that the number of troops is less relevant than changing the minds of the populace. The populace is changing without the far greater number of troops.

Excellent post. I think that the problem with "classical counterinsurgency" is that it has been done successfully in only a very limited number of cases so nobody knows exactly what "troop ratios" are needed. Indeed, the only one that I can think of in recent times is the "Emergency" in Malaya (as I often point out to those who think Iraq should be a Mid-East Switzerland by now, it took the British / Commonwealth something like twelve years to defeat the communist terrorists). Further, in COIN, it's not so much HOW MANY troops you have, but how experienced and well-trained they are. Which is more effective against terrorists: ten poorly-trained men with machineguns, or one well-trained man with a rifle?

I think there are two conflicting models for COIN:

1. Swamp the insurgents with massive numbers of troops and hence relying on lots and lots of firepower. We tried this during the first part of the Vietnam War; it didn't work too well. I'd say that for it to work, one would have to be FAR more brutal than we are usually willing to be. I'm talking exterminating entire villages in reprisal raids, relocating entire populations, draconian punishments for suspected insurgents and sympathizers, etc.

2. Win hearts and minds. I'd say that, unless the insurgents are able to field sizable (company +) units, this is a far more preferable route. It also tends to rely more on "policing" than "military" solutions, which is harder. It's easier to train a "good" soldier than it is to train a "good" cop.

docjim505:

WRT the Iraqi Army - I have read that the Iraqi army was far less hated than one might belive. The officer corps did have a mix of the various groups living in Iraq, and that a number of Iraqi generals had thousands of men who were prepared to aid the liberation.

WRT to Malaysia: Yes it took a long time. I have a friend who was a USN intelligence officer in Vietnam. He was there when they brought over the Brit (Sorry, I forget his name) who masterminded the counter insurgency in Malaya. My friend exolained to his boss at the time that there was a very big difference between Malaya and Vietnam. In Malaya the insurgency was being run primarily by the Chinese (local or otherwise). The Chinese did not look like the Malayans. In Vietnam the people all looked the same (sorry if this sounds racist}.

As far as the Surge goes. I do worry that some Iraqis, whether Sunni or Shiite, or indeed Al Qaeda or the Iranians, will make a number of concentrated spoiling attacks within the towns and cities. It would not take much to amass US casualties in the hundreds. It would take far fewer casualties to ensure a rout of the US, not because US military capability, but because of lack of political and media support within the US.

Looking Glass said on September 11, 2007 9:45 AM:

By attacking the terrorists solve the most difficult anti-terrorist problems: identification, processing, tactical handling, justification, final processing with minimal legal intervention.

The USA news media has convinced the terrorists to keep fighting under these conditions.

The surge exploited further weaknesses in terrorist organization. The obvious answer would be to break contact and wait patiently for US forces to withdraw. Media propaganda has helped prevent this.

I said on October 22, 2007 8:10 PM:

Is it possible that all the sniping the Democrats have been doing during Iraq War II might actually have helped our cause?

I drew my conclusion independently of Looking Glass.

It runs contrary to my constitution to praise MSM for anything, but integrity requires assigning credit where it is due. On the other hand, if their true motivation was to bring about America's defeat in the War on Terror, do they deserve credit?