Rick Brookhiser has an alternative plan to Jim Baker's--kill the enemy.

Is al-Hakim a friend or an enemy?

Sure, if you knew who they were and if you could find them and if you knew what threshold should be met before the bullet is fired. And if membership in the Iraqi NRA was not sufficient cause for blowing them away. And if you knew that doing so might help the mission of democracy in Iraq in the long run, which remains (to his credit) Bush's holy grail.

Brookhiser is even more simple minded here than the anti-semitic ISG. What a "twofer".

How about we start with the ones we know?

Like, say, the leadership of Syria and Iran?

What is best in life? Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women.

BDavis, you seem to know what you are talking about. I haven't had this thrill as yet, so I can't comment on whether it is the best thing in life. Where did you have such fun?

Big D hit the nail on the head. We do know where the enemy is we just don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what we said we would do; strike terrorists AND the countries that support them. Syria and Iran have learned that we didn't really mean part two of that claim.

Toast, Dan Bolger- oh, excuse me: GENERAL Dan Bolger- says pretty much the same thing in his studies of tactics and military history. He points out that if you kill the enemy, you get the terrain for free. He also notes that in an insurgency situation, you may not be able to get at the enemy's command and control or logistics base- so "running him out of troops" is a very valid concept.

Of course, you'll probably consider him ignorant because his opinion differs from your no-doubt expert and professional judgement. So, how many stars do YOU have on YOUR shoulder boards?

Tea,

It's a joke, a line from the Conan the Barbarian movie.

And supposedly a quotation of Genghis Kahn.

we just don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what we said we would do

---------

I guess we can count cecil and simberg, in that list
of people.

Do you enjoy being a clueless moron?

The GWOT could have been ended, permanently, in a couple of hours, with zero Allied casualties and at very little cost. The fact that it was not is a measure of the West's moral superiority; unfortunately, our forbearance was and has continued to be misinterpeted as weakness.

Which means that sooner or later we're going to have to do it anyway, after expending ten thousand (mostly American) lives and a trillion dollars. I can think of much better uses for both.

Fletcher

While i'm sure the neo-con's get all impressed at your manliness,
rattling nukes is also counter-productive.

If we are to kill one billion moslems, as you seem to
propose, it will kill americans, both those living
in the moslem world and with nuclear effects.

Popping nukes will cause a large increase in cancer
here too.

Besides, if you wish to kill all the moslems,
you must also kill most of the chiristians of the
middle east, Hindu's and zorastrians in the region,
and you have to get most of the jews. Israel has
a large moslem population.

You tell me where you want to bomb, Saudi arabia?
fine, let me buy some oil futures first.