What the hell are you talking about? The best way to fight an organization that is stretched throught the world is to open up multiple fronts.

Again- that wasn't the idea behind the "flypaper strategy." I just want to be clear on that.

The media/Democrat postion is that that the best way to fight al-Qaeda is to put hundreds of thousands of troops into a landlocked country halfway around the globe with some of the worst terrain in the world where we don't have many military bases to supply them.

Of if, say, you wanted to bring the actual planners of 9/11 to justice instead of letting them live out their days unmolested.

Personally I'd rather treat the whole thing as a criminal case rather than trying to shoe horn it into the war mold.

What the hell are you talking about? The best way to fight an organization that is stretched throught the world is to open up multiple fronts. The media/Democrat postion is that that the best way to fight al-Qaeda is to put hundreds of thousands of troops into a landlocked country halfway around the globe with some of the worst terrain in the world where we don't have many military bases to supply them. That makes no sense unless you believe that al-Qaeda only exists in that one spot, which is obviously silly.

So the Left is still playing stupid and pretending that al-Qaeda only exists in one place and is not an international organization? That's just embarassing.

Wasn't that the entire point of the "flypaper" strategy? That we'd only have to fight on one front, and that one on foreign shores...

Or have we already reached the point with that one where the right denies ever having said it (ala WMD)?

I start to cry in befuddlement.

You must cry alot.

Actually, there aren't that many foreign jihadists in Iraq, and Al Qaeda has never been more than a secondary source of violence in Iraq, but you're right about one thing. The analogy to the Soviets in Afghanistan is spot on. That's exactly what Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda (the 9/11 one; not the Iraq spin-off)are hoping they will be able to do -- keep the U.S. in Iraq until we are bled dry and ruined economically, just as the Soviets were by the time they left Afghanistan.

Looks like Bush and Cheney are giving OBL their complete cooperation.

Couple of things. First, there's a lot of dead people which won't be dying again - well, at least not until we get the zombie army recruits to fill the US recruit quota. Second, there's been a ginormous emigration of the people - who fear they would be just the targets you're talking about - straight out of the country. About 1.8 million of them. Out of a country of 27 million. Finally, there's also been a huge displacement of people within the country itself, where they moved from where they were being killed to places where they won't be. That's another 2 million or so.

So, there's every reason to believe that - as horrific as it sounds - the vast bulk of the ethnic cleansing is behind us.

they'll fight to keep the power they have.

As the battle in Basra has shown, they're largely incompetent, riddled with militias, and to top it all off, a fairly large number of *both* the police and the army actually surrendered to Sadr's forces rather than fight. It seems quite probable that in the face of zero support from the bully on the block, they would simply vanish like the summer fog in the morning light.

Which would seem to drawn both Turkey and Iran into a war in northern Iraq to keep those Kurds from stirring up secessionist movements in their own populations, or in plain old defense of their own lands, as Turkey is already having to do.

Another point that the anti-this-war-now people were desperately trying to make *before* the war began but were laughed at and marginalized in the national press. But, you're absolutely right. However, it's clear that they don't want to stay in Iraq and want their own place. All you're doing by trying to keep them in is creating even more tension because they're simply going to sublimate that desire into anger at the current government - and let's remember the Iraqi government allowing Turkey to invade and stomp around. Hardly something that endears the Kurds to a greater Iraq.

It doesn't seem obvious to me that a diplomatic "surge" - if you will - to deal with the very thorny issue of Kurdistan won't have at least as much success at keeping the status quo than keeping 140K troops in Iraq. Right now, we're simply ignoring the issue and trying to desperately keep something together which simply wants to fly apart.

And who gets Kirkuk? There's plenty of blood to be shed over that question.

Perhaps, but why not put a shit load of effort into trying to negotiate that before the bloodshed. What we're doing right now is simply deciding by fiat, and no one is happy with the decision.

I would think the recent violence in Basra proves otherwise.

Um, how exactly? This seems to be entirely premised on your first assumption that the weak government would somehow want to spread it's rag tag forces even thinner in such a situation, and put them in a place where they've already had their asses handed to them, in addition to the high probability of a high desertion rate to the very forces they would be fighting.

Sectarian violence certainly was horrific during the last few years while we were there and now that they have done the bulk of the ethnic cleansing it's not clear how much would continue if we left.

There are still people of the other ethnic group, there is still the anger and hatred, what makes you think there wouldn't be more violence?

Propping up a weak and unpopular government? Well, isn't it obvious that that problem would go away by the very question?

Not really, they're already in power, they already have the guns, they won't disappear just because the US leaves, they'll fight to keep the power they have.

It seems quite probably the Kurds would simply leave Iraq.

Which would seem to drawn both Turkey and Iran into a war in northern Iraq to keep those Kurds from stirring up secessionist movements in their own populations, or in plain old defense of their own lands, as Turkey is already having to do.

The Sunnis would get the short end of the stick in the country formed from the midsection of the country.

I'm sure they'll take that peacefully. And who gets Kirkuk? There's plenty of blood to be shed over that question.

The south would be completely calm and be well on it's way to being Iran's BFF.

I would think the recent violence in Basra proves otherwise.

However, James is claiming that despite daily reports of the stress on our armed forces, the drastic lowering of standards to the point of accepting criminals and those who haven't completed high school as applicants, despite the daily drain of Captains and highly qualified, hard to replace personnel, we can still have not just our cake but 2 cakes and eat them both simultaneously.

Kind of reminds me of Rumsfeld back in the day when he was claiming we could fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other front you wanted - just go ahead and make his day, darn it.

AQ in Iraq, certainly. Sectarian violence certainly was horrific during the last few years while we were there and now that they have done the bulk of the ethnic cleansing it's not clear how much would continue if we left. But no, our leaving will not solve that problem. Propping up a weak and unpopular government? Well, isn't it obvious that that problem would go away by the very question? The issue, is whether the resulting collapse of the government would create a "worse" situation where "worse" still is as yet undefined by the "forever war" camp.

But you think an all out war between sunnis and shia, kurds and arabs, Al Qaeda and everyone else, would be less bloody

Where's the evidence this would occur? It seems quite probably the Kurds would simply leave Iraq. The Sunnis would get the short end of the stick in the country formed from the midsection of the country. The south would be completely calm and be well on it's way to being Iran's BFF. I don't see where you think the "all out war" would come from. The all out war is currently happening because the forces driving them apart can't operate. There is no unifying force.

So from a strictly cost/benefit ratio, having God destroy AQ in Afghanistan is the better option.

Okay, that seems to be a distinction without a difference and if an accurate representation of what Crocker said, it clearly wasn't answering the question Biden asked. The whole scenario your claiming is the question was due to the frustration at Crocker's unwillingness to answer the question put to him.

Forced to chose, Crocker chose abandoning the front that would at least be partly manned if we left. But, so long as we can sustain two fronts, it would be absurd to abandon one of them.

We no longer can sustain both fronts, that's kind of the point.

Beyond that we never should have tied up our military, which is designed to carry on two wars simultaneously, with two wars focused on AQ. It meant we have been essentially neutered in the rest of the world. We can project naval and air power but those have proven extremely incapable in modern warfare (see Lebanon, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, ad nauseum). It was idiotic to tie up our entire war machine, which we paid stupid money for, in one corner of the world, even if it is an important one.

Michael, again, you claimed that people were claiming that ALL problems would go away - the divisions, etc. I hoped it was clear from the context that I was talking about the problems we created.

Those problems we created being AQ in Iraq, sectarian violence, propping up a weak and unpopular government? Which exactly of the problems we created would go away when we leave?

Is it that I'm not being clear enough, or do you really believe - especially after I just spent a long comment saying precisely the opposite - that I do believe that.

I don't think you believe that, you seem too intelligent to believe that, but I do think you like the feeling you get when you say that.

You were implying that it was actually far more than just me and that it was somehow a position of those who want to leave Iraq - collectively. So, can you find any other evidence of such?

Probably, do you think I couldn't find evidence of people saying exactly what you said? You think a trip to dailykos.com wouldn't produce a plethora of comments, diaries and an occasional article claiming much the same thing?

Well, it depends on which body count estimate you believe in. Even by conservative estimates - i.e. the estimates that even conservatives will grudgingly admit to - there's been several hundred thousand civilians who've died as a direct result of this occupation.

But you think an all out war between sunnis and shia, kurds and arabs, Al Qaeda and everyone else, would be less bloody? Personally, I don't see anything that would stop the violence, certainly no one side would be able to completely destroy the other in 5 years time, and no unifying force has yet shown itself.

I've misunderstood what you're saying then. You seem to have been making the case that dealing with AQ in Iraq is easy to do, so if God came down and offered to solve either AQI or AQ in P, they would choose the later. Am I correct so far?

I'm making the case that if we were to get a free pass on either AQ in Afghanistan or AQ in Iraq, we would benefit more from removing AQ in Afghanistan. This is both because it will be easier to remove AQ in Iraq, and because removing AQ in Iraq won't really change the situation in Iraq that much. So from a strictly cost/benefit ratio, having God destroy AQ in Afghanistan is the better option.

Is it that I'm not being clear enough, or do you really believe - especially after I just spent a long comment saying precisely the opposite - that I do believe that. If I'm not being clear enough, I apologize. However, if you truly believe that I simply think ponies will prance in large numbers when we leave Iraq then I can't figure out how to dissuade you of that belief any more than I've already tried to do. But let's leave aside the issue of me, personally. You were implying that it was actually far more than just me and that it was somehow a position of those who want to leave Iraq - collectively. So, can you find any other evidence of such?

Relative to what?

Well, it depends on which body count estimate you believe in. Even by conservative estimates - i.e. the estimates that even conservatives will grudgingly admit to - there's been several hundred thousand civilians who've died as a direct result of this occupation. For a couple of years there, there were 10's of bodies being discovered on a daily basis floating in the river with drill holes in their head and bodies in obvious signs of torture.

Maybe you've forgotten how horrific the last couple of years have been.

You're conflating AQ in Iraq with sectarian and tribal violence, and you sir, are no John McCain.

Okay, obviously I've misunderstood what you're saying then. You seem to have been making the case that dealing with AQ in Iraq is easy to do, so if God came down and offered to solve either AQI or AQ in P, they would choose the later. Am I correct so far?

And I don't think anyone believes that the problems will magically disappear if we left. If you can find anyone who is actually stating that, I would appreciate a link.

Here: "from all observations the reason why they continue to exist is that we're still in the country."

However, without the US firepower there to prop up the weak, it's pretty clear that the battle would be quite swift and relatively bloodless

Relative to what?

You're saying that it takes less military cost to take out AQ in Iraq. Certainly, we've been hearing that now for five years and somehow we still spend 25+billion a month on this low, low cost.

You're conflating AQ in Iraq with sectarian and tribal violence, and you sir, are no John McCain. The contribution AQ in Iraq makes is, by all accounts I've seen, small in comparison to Iraq's other problems. Sure they are the most dramatic, blowing up chlorine trucks makes for big headlines, but in terms of actual numbers killed or injured, they're well behind.