From a comment in this post:

AQ thrives on war and chaos.

(Implying that we've actually empowered Al Qaeda by removing Saddam, and that all the other problems in the world as well are, as usual, Amerikkka's fault).

This is a fascinating statement. The last time that I recall Al Qaeda "thriving" was in Afghanistan, under the Taliban. Then, they had training camps, were training people by the hundreds, and were able to plan and execute things like 9/11.

I don't think that they're thriving in Iraq today, unless by "thriving," you mean losing hundreds of Hirabis monthly. Much is made of the loss of American troops, and the deaths of civilians, but there's much less reporting of the deaths of the Al Qaeda types, or it's mixed in with the "civilian" deaths. Their current losses aren't sustainable, and I think that they've ramped up the action only in hopes of influencing the US election. The only place they're winning, really, is in the western media (just as was the case for the North Vietnamese in Tet).

The fact that they're capable of causing chaos (unfortunately, it's much easier to cause chaos than otherwise--entropy's a bitch) doesn't mean that they "thrive" on it. Believe me, they'd much prefer a stable government that they controlled. They certainly don't have that now in Iraq. In fact, the majority Shia government is starting to hunt them down and make their lives thoroughly miserable.

Is this a disaster for Iraq? Perhaps.

Is it a disaster for the US? Only if we're unwilling to accept any casualties whatsoever--by any previous standards of war, they remain low.

Is it a victory for Al Qaeda?

Only if we elect the Dems, and pull out.

Whenever I hear this "we are making more of them" crap, my response is the same.

"I don't see too many davidians running around."

Huh?
AQ gained its foothold in Afganistan during the Soviet invasion and the civil wars that follow the withdrawal. Same goes with Somalia, Sudan and now Iraq. AQ achieves its objectives with the breakdown of secular civil society - leaving no security but "allah". They don't particularly care about numerical losses - and in Iraq, the bonfire is well and trully lit - "mission accomplished" from their point of view.

As always, mistaking accounting for strategy is probably the greatest Western military weakness. It potentially leads one to the point of endorsing virtual genocide, in the persuit of an arbitrary "victory".

Uh, WP: Oklahoma City. (No, it wasn't Saddam).

I liken Iraq to a sparrow trap.

Has anyone ever seen how a sparrow trap works? It's just a little cage with a trap door just like any other trap. But it doesn't work with ordinary food bait. No, you put a live sparrow in a sparrow trap and it flutters around in the trap attracting the attention of its comrades who go into it to see what all the fluttering is about. The more sparrows who go into the trap, the better it works because there is more fluttering.

Iraq is a sparrow trap except the jihadists are the sparrows. The first jihadist was bait for the second and so on. That's the strategy for the war on terror in Iraq. Every jihadist who is lured into the trap is one less to be found elsewhere.

Uh, WP: Oklahoma City. (No, it wasn't Saddam).

Uh, DY: "I don't see too many McVeighs and Nichols running around." Before you spit back "McVeigh claimed he was avenging Waco", I just have to say, "they got one more punch in, before they went silent. AQ is a larger network, they'll get a few more punches in before they go silent."

There also aren't many zoroastrians, (at least in terms of the persian attempts to dominate the globe) There aren't many Thuggee, there are no aztecs (at least worshiping their lizard god.)

That is an example of three groups that no longer exist based exclusively on military conquest.

Idea's die as easy as those who hold idea's close. The memory of the idea might survive, but their strength serves no purpose other than as a footnote in history, or an archaelogical discovery after thousands of years of silence.

In addition, mcveigh wasn't a davidian, he was responding to a lot of second ammendment overreach on the part of the clinton government.(I don't support it, I'm just explaining his mindset)

He wasn't a davidian, he was basicaly. . .as an analogy, he was a whiny code pink liberal standing in support for all of those who have been oppressed, LIKE at waco and ruby ridge.

And lucky for us that the Code Pinko types haven't the courage of their convictions to "take to the streets" or "do whatever it takes" to fight the Evil ChimpyMcBushitler and the Descending Fascists. But with Leftwing agitprop like Death of a President, it's only a matter of time, as shown by cases like the clown at the Allen rally in Virgina doing the Sirhan Sirhan imitation.

AQ gained its foothold in Afganistan during the Soviet invasion and the civil wars that follow the withdrawal.

"Gaining a foothold" != "thriving"

AQ didn't thrive until the Russians were gone, and they had full control of the country, in partnership with the Taliban. Al Qaeda doesn't thrive in Iraq--it is fighting a rear-guard battle to ensure that no one does.

And we don't know for sure that Saddam had nothing to do with OK City. Bill Clinton's FBI made sure of that. Foreign involvement would have been entirely too inconvenient to the politically correct line that it was white militia guys. You know, those "angry white men," who had a "temper tantrum," and had put Republicans in power a few months before?

You are better than ethereal unsubstantiated speculations like that Rand.

I don't mean to "lecture" I'm just saying that your voice is strong enough to not be tainted with that automated statement. Though you are right about the information purge Clinton went through, the speculation is extreme.

I've no idea to what "unsubstantiated speculations" you're referring. If you mean Iraqi involvement with OKC, there's abundant substantiation for that speculation. Read Jayna Davis' book, as well as Laurie Mylroie.

As for the Clinton administration's allergy to such speculations, simply consider the political consequences. They'd have to concede that it wasn't just white militia types and radio talk show hosts involved, a storyline which resurrected their political viability after the loss of Congress in 1994, but also they'd have to actually do something about Iraq (something that they'd decided to avoid after the first WTC bombing in 1993). There was a pattern to the administration, in that they would undertake serious political action only in response to things in which we had no national interest at stake (e.g., Bosnia).

Wow, this is a much quieter and more cogent Wickedpinto than the one I usually see at Ace's...

Back on topic: pulling out of Iraq would be a major DEFEAT for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaida are the vanguard of the Wahhabis, who are the vanguard of the Hanbalis, who are the vanguard of the Shafi'is, who are the vanguard of the western Sunnis. Us leaving Iraq would mean handing it over to a vengeful Shi'a Iran.

The War on [Sunni] Terror is over. We and the Shi'ites have won that. Now we must fight the War on Shi'ite Apocalyptic.

Wow

Simberg admitted something very important here.

His primary source for iraq and Hussein is
Laurie Mylroie. I'm sure Laurie's mom loves her,
but otherwise, she's a phenomenally loathsome
indvidual.

Working with Michael Ladeen she's been selling the
Saddam Hussein (Blew up the WTC, Blew up OKC,
Burned the Reichstag) line her entire career.

Her work is uncredible, her books inexcrable.

Wow, Simberg reads and Cite's Mylroie.

Woo. That's really telling.

"Woo. That's really telling."

Your post tells up more about your character than Rand's.

Who would you like to cite? Perhaps Choms_ky?

Of course, you never take a postion, you simply criticise. The fact you are too lazy to at least fake a real sounding name tells us even more.

anonymous seems like one of those people who would attend book burning parties.

Der Lickspittle of the nutroots no doubt.

D.R.

It's like farting in church, I don't do it. Or cussing in front of your grandparents, I don't do it.

Rands place is a more civilized environment, and I generaly only cross the line when I'm short sleep and giddy.

Aces is a den of rogues, there I can scratch whereever I please.

Wretchard made the argument best. If Saddam's nuke data were of such sophistication that in 2006 the same info placed on a website created danger, then Saddam was too close for comfort to getting nukes. He didn't necessarily have to possess all of the bomb parts or the centrifuges or the uranium, because (as A. Q. Khan showed) a lot of the production process could be outsourced.

Of course we only know about A. Q. Khan because we invaded Iraq and spooked Qaddafi into turning state's evidence.

And of course the MSM were quick to find experts to criticize Congress for forcing the Administration to put the docs on the Web. But it seems like it might be a good thing that the public now knows that those docs were there. What else of value might be buried in the yet-to-be-translated archive?

"Her work is uncredible, her books inexcrable."

I can decode "uncredible" - but what is
"inexcrable" supposed to mean? Execrable?
Inscrutable? Inexcusable? Indescribable?