If the Democrats needed any further reassurance that we are gradually succeeding in Iraq, they need only listen to Osama bin Laden’s latest tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera.
As a reminder, the Sunnis in al-Anbar Province joined forces with the U.S.  Af…

We’ve begun to notice a strong correlation between “posts about the peace process” and “posts that nobody bothers to click on.” We attribute this ennui to confusion-driven disgust with all things State Department and Olmert, and dutifully promise …

I’m so tired of this BS argument. They weren’t in Iraq when we invaded them? SO-FREAKING-WHAT!!

They are there now! We are fighting them there, NOW!

Iraq is where they have concentrated their strength in a self-admitted attempt to drive us out of the middle east. The path to bin Laden’s Caliphate runs through Baghdad. So says bin Laden himself. If they are unable to prevail against us, their entire movement is in jeopardy of collapse, because the inability to oust us goes directly to bin Laden’s credibility as a “strong horse.” They rolled the dice and it is coming up snake-eyes.

Iraq is the next place where we will break them.

As author, and retired Lt. Col Austin Bay wrote:

“The essence of strategic art is to force an enemy to fight on your terms, not his, and ideally in a fight he cannot refuse. The U.S.-led attack on Iraq changed al Qaeda’s battlefield. Sunni-extremist al Qaeda has had to fight in a predominantly Shia country. Arab elitists in al Qaeda snubbed the Afghans and ticked them off; Kurds know the feeling.

Zarqawi’s al Qaeda clan accepted the battle….

…The continuing combat in Iraq is thus not only the result of slapdash postwar planning, but of two strategic aims that will take years to mesh: (1) engage al Qaeda on a battlefield it did not choose in order to destroy its eschatological claims, and (2) plant a modern, secular Arab state in the Middle East that will ultimately seal al Qaeda’s defeat.

[Austin Bay, "The Millennium War," 1/3/2005, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/076blgjq.asp

[BTW, Bay was on Gen Tommy Franks' operations staff for the invasion and helped plan it]

My God, this is elementary and goes as far back as Sun Tzu. We have Al Qaeda on “death ground” and we (with the Iraqis) are killing them. If they weren’t in Iraq fighting us, we’d have to find ANOTHER battle ground to engage them in the middle east.

For those who are confused: Here’s what happened: We invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Of the 23 casus belli in PL 107-243 (the authorization to use military force), 16 had to do with “unfinished business” from the 1991 Gulf War, including compliance with the terms of the cease fire. Two had to do with ACTS OF WAR COMMITTED AGAINST AMERICA by Iraq (attempting to assassinate a former President, and firing on our aircraft engaged in enforcing the cease fire).

Only 3 items in PL 107-243 had to do with the suspicion of Saddam’s cooperation with Al Qaeda.

We succeeded in overthrowing Saddam, which was and had been the public policy of the USA since 1998.

“Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 – Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.”

After we overthrew Saddam, Al Qaeda made the decision to engage us there in the hope of forcing us out of Iraq and ultimately the middle east. They failed.

The surge is working and working well.

It isn’t “pride” that should keep us there. It is the necessity to utterly smash first Al Qaeda, then the Sadr’s Shiite Militia. It is VERY MUCH the necessity to finish the job of turning Al Qaeda into fertilizer in Iraq.

Then, we can go after the leadership in the tribal lands of Pakistan.

In what way does that make sense? We should pack up and leave and let Iraqis deal with the problem in order to punish ourselves for giving AQ a battlefield? That’s downright masochistic.

Well, the left was against going in there from the start, so it’d be more correct to say that the presence of al Qaeda affiliated terrorists fails to change their mind on that judgement. It’s not their reason for leaving, it’s just not a reason for staying.

I’d rather have them “activated” where our troops have a chance to dispatch them then against civilians in relatively undefended American or Israeli city.

You don’t know that they would have been otherwise “activated” without our provocation. And if you’re wrong, you’ve just set off a chain reaction that won’t end as long as we’re too proud to leave “before the job is finished.”

That’s “I’m a sissypants” in Arabic.

PRCalDude on October 22, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Glad to hear he’s ok.

I wonder what would happen if Bin Hidin was killed or captured? Would most of America/world believe the war is won and over? Do people here believe anything will change on confirmation of his death?

AQ? Who is that? The west dubbed them so, the west is afraid to say Islam. Will Islam die with Osama? Unlikely.

“It’s always good news when they are divided… it’s reflective that U.S. tactics are having some success.”

This from the same crowd that cries foul whenever we point out that the Dhimmicrats are hurting our side in the war effort.

Oh… why do I bother?

An ally to a degree, but not a very good or controllable one and sometimes counterproductive to the mission.

In what way does that make sense? We should pack up and leave and let Iraqis deal with the problem in order to punish ourselves for giving AQ a battlefield? That’s downright masochistic.

Allahpundit on October 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM

How is that masochistic? How would we be punishing ourselves?

Poor thang. It seems that things in what he has called the “central battlefield” [Iraq] against the U.S., isn’t working out as well as he had hoped it would, especially since General Petraeus has implemented the surge and the new counterinsugency …..

Of course, on another level, talking about AQI as being linked to al Qaeda is bad for the pro-war crowd, because it calls attention to the fact that the invasion of Iraq created more terrorists (or “activated” them) than it killed.
Mark Jaquith on October 22, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I’d rather have them “activated” where our troops have a chance to dispatch them then against civilians in relatively undefended American or Israeli city. There’s no question that AQI is linked to Al Qaeda- it’s not in dispute either amongst AQI or Al Qaeda terrorists.

If they’re willing to drive a suicide car bomb into a crowd in Iraq, there’s no reason not to believe that they’d do so in Tel Aviv, Beirut, or New York City. The US didn’t so much “create” terrorists as draw them out.

Dealing death and defeat to Jihadis is a good thing; abandoning Iraq and allowing AQI/AQ to claim victory would be a very, very bad thing.

Probably that “AQI” didn’t exist until we invaded, so it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for staying.

In what way does that make sense? We should pack up and leave and let Iraqis deal with the problem in order to punish ourselves for giving AQ a battlefield? That’s downright masochistic.

Our entire family will pray for your friend….for our friend, and his family.

Given Bin Laden’s evident concern over developments in Iraq, what exactly is the crux of the left’s claim that Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq are wholly separate organizations and never the twain shall meet?

Probably that “AQI” didn’t exist until we invaded, so it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for staying.

Both sides have an agenda. The rights wants to talk about “al Qaeda” in Iraq because that gets people thinking about 9/11 and that gets people supporting a military blank check. The left wants to completely deny an AQI/al Qaeda link because it offers to some people some sort of post-factum justification for staying there.

Of course, on another level, talking about AQI as being linked to al Qaeda is bad for the pro-war crowd, because it calls attention to the fact that the invasion of Iraq created more terrorists (or “activated” them) than it killed. But they’re hoping the people will be stupid and will just think “al Qaeda in ____ == the people who did 9/11.” And that’s probably a good call, considering how many people were fooled into beliving that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks (an astonishing 70% in late 2003, 47% in early 2005 and 41% in mid-2007).

PRCalDude on October 22, 2007 at 5:03 PM

done.