As for the soldiers who want to go to Afghanistan, I say switch ‘em out. Bring the soldiers who have been slugging it out in Afghanistan to Iraq for some R&R so to speak and send the bored units in Iraq to where the fighting is.

Right on! The last thing the moose limbs expected after 9/11 was an invasion into the heart of their precious Dar al Islam. Then they came to expel the hated and feared infidel and got their collective keffiyahs handed to them in the process.

That soldiers are looking elsewhere for a battle is a testament to how much Iraq has changed from a year ago, when violence was at its height.

Liberal/Progressive Translation: “Those murdering fascists just need more innocent civilians to slaughter…those animals!”

“Hail to the Obama Master”

amerpundit hit the nail on the head there. Killing bin Laden is a feel-good goal, not a be-all end-all if we intend to smash Islamic extremism. He was a figurehead and fund-raiser, and now he’s cut off from his sources, hiding in a cave putting out a crackly audio tape every year or so just so we won’t all forget he’s still cowering from us. That’s honestly probably better than martyring him right off the bat and declaring victory.

Al-Queda is a movement, not a clear-cut organization… that’s how al-Queda in Iraq formed. It wasn’t that AQ members snuck in and started up a new gang… they were Islamic extremists who thought Iraq was a good place to fight the infidel, and thought they could get more PR points for being associated with al-Queda. Well, they got the attention they wanted, and are virtually annihilated, along with almost every maniac who charged into Iraq thinking they could fight our military.

You fight an organization by decapitating it and disbanding the membership. Since al-Queda isn’t an organization, but a movement, killing their leadership is only important in the sense that the leaders are independently dangerous. But we could kill every last one, and a new AQ would pop up somewhere else. You kill a movement not be defeating them – but by showing them they were wrong to have opposed you in the first place. In short, we drain the pool of potential members.

We can’t fight Islamic extremism from Afghanistan – it’s out on the fringes, will probably take a century to stabilize (it hasn’t been organized and ruled properly since the Mughal Empire), is not centrally in the thoughts of most of the Muslim world (except as that festering hole between Iran and Pakistan). If we build a real country out of the place, it’s going to practically be from scratch.

Now Iraq in contrast: centrally located, formerly the seat of the Caliphate, Arab (as opposed to Persian or Indo-Asian-Persian), an existing modern base society, disliked by its neighbors for assorted reasons… and for our purposes, engaged in a low-key war, in violation of actionable UN sanctions, ruled by Hitler-lite and the Rapist Duo, and apparently (according to intel at the time) rebuilding or attempting to rebuild a WMD program (specifically nuclear, to gain the sort of immunity of action North Korea has gained, and Iran is now seeking). To be cold blooded about it, we have to change the culture that produces religious extremism by providing a better alternative. The only other alternative is to bunker down, weather future attacks (which within the century, will be nuclear in nature… it’s unavoidable at this point) from frustrated jihadis, and hope they undergo an Islamic Reformation before they murder too many of us, or goad the rest of the world into going Exterminatus on their collective asses. Since that’s not something I’d care to see, we need instead to actively show them a better way of doing things through example and by wiping out the throwbacks who would rather blow a hundred Muslims to bloody chunks rather than let them live in a way not according to the most extreme and fanatic application of sha’ria imaginable. It is a messy, expensive, dangerous process… but also the one with the greatest potential rewards.

And so far, it is working, regardless of what the NYT editorial board thinks. Afghanistan has been a major holding action since we pushed the Taliban and al-Queda into hiding in the Pakistan border ranges. We can’t obliterate them, but we can keep them from reasserting control. In Iraq however, we have seen real progress. We deposed a murderous thug and dangerous dictator (not by itself necessarily reason to go to war, though certainly not a bad thing). We proved that we infidels ain’t all bad by doing so, and by providing a bit of security and stability. We’ve put Iraqis in everyday contact with our best men and generated a sense of familiarity, especially once Petraeus shifted our positioning, and got our guys out of their isolated bases. We’ve established a clear demonstration of strength and resolve (provided we don’t run now), and the inherent weakness and cowardice of the decadent West is one of their big memes. Further, by coming into Iraq, they succeeded in behaving like a bunch of psychotic thugs, and managed to chase a major part of an angry populace right into our arms… no doubt this has done wonders for their reputations in the rest of the Muslim world.

We need to stay in Afghanistan to remove it from play as a secure refuge for fanatics. We need to stay in Iraq and continue to gradually transform the society there in order to take the first major step in eradicating Islamic extremism and the general misery and hopelessness that it thrives on.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Aq called us out, they took the first few shots, our government punked out and we kept getting hit, then on 9-11 it was on. We fought them and scattered them in Afghanistan and then we picked the battle field of our choosing. They have been all but eliminated in one of the most holy lands of islame and Muslims helped route them it’s a huge defeat far bigger then routing them from Afghanistan alone. Not to mention how AQ supports were sent fleeing from the Ethiopians forces in Somalia. They can not fight a mulit prong war they don’t have the forces or the ability. So stretch them out and destroy, disgrace and humiliate them and show them to there Muslim brothe4rs for what they are murdering infidels.

Now instead of capturing any of them we need to just kill them on the battle field.

Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Great minds think alike, I guess…

prolix on July 17, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Throw in the fact that we invaded Iraq to prevent AQ from getting a hold of nukes. So far we have prevented them from getting them.

Is the war “over,” at least to the extent that some troops can be redeployed come home?

Get ready for the Jubilee,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
We’ll give the hero three times three,
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The laurel wreath is ready now
To place upon his loyal brow
And we’ll all feel gay straight
When Johnny comes marching home.

amerpundit on July 17, 2008 at 2:38 PM

I agree with you. Welcome to Cynics Anonymous.

amerpundit on July 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM

The elimination of Bin Hidin’ wouldn’t have been the end-all. My posts didn’t imply that. Like I said, first and foremost, I kill the entity that attacked me – where I can readily find him. Anything after that, is gravy.

OK, now I’m done.

Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 3:00 PM

They crossed over into Pakistan – yes, they did. Had American forces been in Afghanistan, in overwhelming numbers, we wouldn’t have had to use Pakistani and Afghan troops to try and prevent Bin Hidin’s “cross over” from Tora Bora, into Pakistan.

That is my point. And, I’ve said all I’m going to on this matter.

It wouldn’t have been just an “emotional victory.” It would’ve been supported by most Americans – and it would’ve killed the instigator, and his upper-echelon henchmen, of the obscenity that happened on 9-11.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 17, 2008 at 2:58 PM

And it wouldn’t have stopped the Al Qaeda network even in Afghanistan. It would’ve been supported by most Americans, undoubtedly. While it would’ve killed the chief of the organization, it wouldn’t have done much to eliminate the treat. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see OBL in a body bag. But some people seem to think that his death is the be-all-end-all of the problem.

Flew in on a big plane, I hope I’ll be in one piece flyin out when I go.
I was just passin through, must now be thirteen months or more.
Running out of time and patience, looks like they took more of my friends.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Islam land again.

The man in the White House said yet again I was on my way.
Somewhere I lost his connection, he ran out of words to say.
I came into Baghdad, a one year stand, looks like the plans fell through
Oh ! lord, stuck in Islam land again.

Mmmm…
If I only had a woman, for evry tour Ive done.
And evry time Ive had to fight while people back home sat there power drunk.
You know, Id like to catch the next plane back to where Im from.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Islam land again.
Oh ! lord, Im stuck in Islam land again.

- CCR Soldier Boy

Incoming!

Uh-oh.

An article touting positive news in Iraq guarantees the appearance of “you-know-who” on this thread.

Mike Honcho on July 17, 2008 at 2:56 PM

This “you-know-who” voted for Ronald Reagan, twice. And is a registered Republican.

I don’t attack Iraq, when those attackerss are in Afghanistan, and can be surrounded in Tora Bora.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM

.
They weren’t surrounded, they crossed the border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, the rest of their crew went to Iraq. Take your pick, fight in Iraq, fight in Pakistan (who has nukes), or fight on US soil.

amerpundit on July 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM

It wouldn’t have been just an “emotional victory.” It would’ve been supported by most Americans – and it would’ve killed the instigator, and his upper-echelon henchmen, of the obscenity that happened on 9-11.

The fact that you, and others, continue to use the term “comeback” re: the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, supports my argument. You can’t make a “comeback,” when you’ve been eliminated by overwhelming force. The same applies to al qaida in Afghanistan, formerly in Tora Bora, and now in Pakistan.

An article touting positive news in Iraq guarantees the appearance of “you-know-who” on this thread.

Is the war “over,” at least to the extent that some troops can be redeployed?

I’m really glad things are going so well there, but that doesn’t mean it’s safe and we can pull out. My husband tells me that there have only been 4 rocket attacks aimed at where he is in the last 1.5 months! Well, that’s a lot better than it was, but I’m not exactly doing a victory dance here.

Had he, and others, been in Afghanistan, Bin Hidin’ might just’ve been erased in Tora Bora.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM

While killing bin Laden would’ve been an emotional victory, little would’ve been stopped within Al Qaeda. He would’ve been replaced, just like Zarqawi was.

We already kicked the Taliban’s ass. The problem is that they’re trying to make a comeback. That’s what we have to stop.

Did you miss the story where we spent 2002 in Afganistan, killing all the Taliban we could find, before going to Iraq?

Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Did you miss the part where the focus of American deployment has been in Iraq? Much to the chagrin of those Americans who were trying to kill the Taliban and al qaida in Afghanistan? Al qaida … like Bin Hidin’.

First and foremost, I attack those who have attacked my country – and I don’t attack Iraq, when those attackerss are in Afghanistan, and can be surrounded in Tora Bora.

Think_b4_speaking on July 17, 2008 at 2:47 PM

Great minds think alike, I guess…

OhEssYouCowboys on July 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Ummm, did you miss the part where the US military kicked the Taliban’s butts out of the country? Only then did we go to Iraq.

Granted, now they’re trying to come back, but that doesn’t mean that we never should have gone to Iraq.