I don't think anyone is. Nice strawman, but really. . .

But the reality is as James has stated it: the Islamists want to wipe us from the face of the Earth, or, failing that, subjugate us to their will. They will continue until they succeed or they're dead.

My vote's for the second option.

"It’s also unclear to me why it is that more nation-building in Afghanistan “could bring true victory” whereas doing it in Iraq, a far more significant and populous state, is a diversion from the greater war effort."

The majority of those opposing the effort in Iraq don't do so from a sense of how it will impact Iraq. They don't oppose the effort out of some sense of which application of force is correct - nor out of any moral inclination.

The majority of those opposing the effort in Iraq do so because they are afraid. They are afraid the "even handedness" we have exercised in ME relations (giving more money to Egypt than Israel for example) will end, which has been drummed into us as the probable catalyst for the next world war.

What people have failed to realize is the war is already here. People are coming to our backyard to kill us. At the same time, they are steadily attempting to inject their twisted value base into the mainstream of ME thinking - increasing their ability to gain power.

Many are stuck in the "here and now" and can't see past the windshields of their cars. I say it takes a larger attempt at "vision" than that to understand the threats our children will have to face.

Meezer: Good question. Pretty much all the mainstream books on either terrorism (e.g. Bruce Hoffman) or Islam (e.g., Bernard Lewis) make that point. It does seem to be missed by most, though.

Brett: Sure. Remember, though, that al Qaeda is just one loosely organized part of the larger Islamist terror movement. And Saddam was a major sponsor of them, even though his government was secular.

"Yes, these fights have a military dimension — but the primary struggle is political, ideological and economic. We can't win it by force or on the cheap. Victory will come only through strengthening local allies and reformers, not by trying to impose our own political values."

to

But let’s not pretend that the Islamists will love us if only we’d play nice.

Just curious.

The International Institute of Strategic Studies in London has estimates that Al Qaeda and its affiliates now have a strength of 18,000 men, many joining the movement as a result of the Afghan and Iraq conflicts."

What, we weren't going to invade Afghanistan?

And, what precisely do you think he means by "the primary struggle is political, ideological and economic"? It's the same tired rhetoric that we've been hearing for decades. It was at least marginally true of old style terrorist organizations like the PLO and the IRA, that had actual goals in mind. Certainly, economics isn't an issue, as much of the leadership in Islamist groups is quite well off. And compromise on ideological and political fronts will just embolden the terrorists, who will see it as a sign of weakness. Remember, these are guys who think the Wahabbist Saudi government is insufficiently extreme in its commitment to Islam.

b) Look to your own leader Bush: Mideast democracy key to terror war.

Bush's point actually contradicts Cordesman, who says we shouldn't try to impose our vision on them. I'm skeptical that democracy is going to happen, but agree that it's the answer.

The article originally quoting the IISS "study" failed to make it clearly understood that the 18000 number they cite is 2000 less than the number of Al Qaeda and affiliated cells/groups according to the same "study". They also failed to mention that number was a big, wopping, educated guess.

I no longer remember where the article was, but while the headline made it look like this was some kind of build up from previous numbers, there was actually nothing stated in the article to support the headline. My interpretation of the data is that there are 2000 less now and that the numbers of al-Qaeda MIGHT be increasing due to the happenings in Iraq.

I am not discounting the data (much), but that was a article most spun, IMHO.

One thing is certain, foreign fighters who are not having much success getting into Israel right now are coming into Iraq to fight the Infadel there instead. Those are not really al-Qaeda types though.

---