…or abandon the Iraqis. John Podhoretz says that Ralph Peters is wrong to throw in the towel.

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.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and was only a year away from a bomb. Less than a week before the election, the New York Times says so.

[Update about noon EST]

I thought that the tongue in cheek was obvious, but I guess not. The point of the post was that the Times was reporting it the way they did, when they did.

We should be calling them Hirabis. Interesting.

John Keegan says that Israel will have to take out Hezbollah’s tunnels in a renewal of the war in Lebanon, probably by the end of the year.

An interesting discussion over at Winds of Change. Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt says that Australian Muslims have failed the test, and he’s fed up.

Oh, and the Dems will be happy to know that they have the Jihadi vote wrapped up. They could usefully ask themselves why that might be the case.

An interesting discussion over at Winds of Change. Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt says that Australian Muslims have failed the test, and he’s fed up.

Oh, and the Dems will be happy to know that they have the Jihadi vote wrapped up. They could usefully ask themselves why that might be the case.

An interesting discussion over at Winds of Change. Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt says that Australian Muslims have failed the test, and he’s fed up.

Oh, and the Dems will be happy to know that they have the Jihadi vote wrapped up. They could usefully ask themselves why that might be the case.

Ralph Peters has given up on Iraq. For the sake of the Iraqis, and the larger war effort, I hope he’s wrong.

Donald Sensing, on Al Qaeda strategy (such as it is) in Iraq.

[Update about 11 AM EST]

Democrat Orson Scott Card doesn’t trust his party with power in war time:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case — if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America’s role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it — and in the most damaging possible way — I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

That seems unlikely to happen if they’re rewarded with a return to power now, something that they haven’t earned by their behavior or attitudes. Sadly, neither party deserves to win.