The problem is that the way A.Q. is defeated and stays that way is by convincing Iraqis that "tribe America" in Yon's words is going to stay until the job's done. U.S. politicians are costing American lives and strengthening A.Q. with their talk of surrender. It's an amazing contrast between the will of soldiers and marines in 115 degree heat versus the spineless, pampered politicians.

BTW, AQ is now admitting it is taking a licking, but the MSM has no truck with good news during this war & that AQ self-assessment is not being disseminated. Honest reporters like John Burns at the NYT are being ignored and young TV suck-ups know that bad news is what their editorial bosses want to hear—so it remains the explosion of the day. The Tet syndrome repeats itself. Some Repubs will bow to the prevailing winds & the stupidly conducted expedition to Iraq will slowly retreat.

Like the Euroweenie left, the Dems exult in non-performance & national self-abasement.

Al Qaeda keeps proclaiming that Iraq is the centerpoint for their conflict with America because...

Our presence in Iraq is a huge win for them that presents them will all kinds of opportunities they would not otherwise have. They know Bush is stupid enough to buy their self serving message hook, line, and sinker.

Indeed, the fact that Republican Senators continue to bail on the war would seem to be further evidence that the insurgents are winning.

More likely, that's evidence that our media is winning.

“Destroying the influence of Al Qaeda, or even foreign jihadists writ large, in Iraq is not going to end the insurgency.”
No more then taking Northern Africa, succes of the Normandy landing, capturing Italy, France and being poise on German borders meant the WWII was over. However it would be a well on the right way of ending the insurgency.

The debate on al Qaeda’s strength as an international movement is just that debatable. Many believe that they are using most of their resources in the fight in Iraq. Maybe they will have a flurry of action elsewhere. Doing so though will use up much of their resources, which may not be replaced. Leaving them alone will allowed them to replenish and build up their resources. Logistical resource determines how much capability an enemy has to conduct war. Even in unconventional war like this one.

Can they fight as long as they are alive and have the will to? Yes. However their capabilities to do so can be limited. Also they often loose their will when they suffer to many set backs and the resources dry up.

It seem to me you are making the argument that if we can’t stop murder then we should give up on trying to prevent murders.

JH
Good post. I don’t want to over simplify things but like riot control, we must get control of the instigators before we can hope to calm the rest of the groups.

Still, there are plenty of indigenous, non-Islamist groups at work to continue the fight. Indeed, the fact that Republican Senators continue to bail on the war would seem to be further evidence that the insurgents are winning.

I suspect that varies from group to group because it depends on what each group wants. The ones whose main interest is getting US troops out of Iraq are theoretically closer, but the "residual troops" meme is so stubborn in both parties that I have my doubts even here. As for the ones whose main interest is getting US troops out as a prelude to restoring Baathist rule or Sunni hegemony or compelling a better share of the loot from the Shiites, I don't know. I think the Shiite parties, with Iranian backing, can probably keep the Sunnis out of real power indefinitely. Lacking real power the Sunnis can probably immiserate the country with GG ops indefinitely. That's a stalemate or a mutual defeat depending on how sunny your outlook.

Interestingly, the Shiite nightmare scenario seems to be: 1) They acquiesce in US demands to let Baathists back into important government positions. 2) The Baathists launch a coup, which is what they're good at. 3) The US accepts the results because it's simpler, giving us the "strongman who isn't named Saddam" some policymakers have wanted. That's why they make sure not to pass a new de-baathification law. But that's a non-Islamist insurgency victory scenario that requires the US to remain in place.