I also have not said that we are incapable of stopping the violence, I said that we are not trying to stop the violence, we are trying in intercept the violence, which is all together different.

I also acknowledge that we are and will continue to be involved in a long term engagement with terrorists around the world. I simply acknowledge that "kill them all" is an unrealistic goal, and "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" assumes that they cannot do both, while they have proven multiple times since 2003 that they can in fact do both.

And that wasn't a solution, it wasn't intended to be a solution, it was an analysis of a situation. There are many ways we can change that situation, I doubt you'd be very interested in hearing them from me though.

The problem is that we're trying to be 100 times better at reaching our goal than they are at reaching theirs, instead of changing the situation to make our goals easier or their goals harder.

Great. Nice vague solution. Have you been talking to Reid and Pelosi? Or was it Clinton?

and

saying their ability to resist is stronger than our ability to quell the violence (so it's all just a waste of time).

and, oh yeah,

your refusal to acknowledge that we are, and ought to be engaged in a lon-term struggle to elimnate this threat.

I posted your quotes. You know what you said. You want to talk about facts, you might want to stay away from the fairy tales the MSM has crafted for you.

So, Mr. miltary expert, where exactly do you derive all of your "facts" from?

Aside from adaptation, you forgot to mention that AQ doesn't have our media and comments like yours working against them. Thanks for fighting for the other side.

Jesus Christ, I think I could have said I like motherhood and apple pie, and you would take that to mean I support Al Qaeda.

I don't care how you feel about the war or the President. The double standard for the abilities of AQ vs. our troops is well worn out.

I didn't say anything about how I feel about this war or this President. And even if I did, that alone wouldn't invalidate my point, only facts would invalidate my point. Emotional appeals do not change facts, and they don't solve problems. If you think that "support our troops" means "just make believe everything is ok", then you do everyone a disservice.

My point was that Al Qaeda is better designed for fighting an insurgency that the US military is designed for fighting a counter-insurgency.

Correction: Your assumption was...

Unless whomever replaced him is more competent than he is.

The insurgents in Iraq are adapting far faster than US forces,

I don't care how you feel about the war or the President. The double standard for the abilities of AQ vs. our troops is well worn out.

Aside from adaptation, you forgot to mention that AQ doesn't have our media and comments like yours working against them. Thanks for fighting for the other side.

Oh, I see. AQ is improvising and adapting all the time, but our military is merely a "tool deisgned for a job".
The situation sounds so hopeless, I recommend you and Antin Sand put yourselves out of your misery.

Again, how can that possibly be read into my post? They're all tools designed for a job, and they're all adapting their design for new jobs. My point was that Al Qaeda is better designed for fighting an insurgency that the US military is designed for fighting a counter-insurgency.

I think you are selling our forces short, but your mileage may vary.

Saying that an 18 wheeler won't win the Indy500 isn't selling the truck short. Making the 18 wheeler bigger won't improve it's chances either.

My point was that we're either using the wrong tool for the job at hand, or trying to do the wrong job for the tools we have. If we don't change either, it doesn't matter how good the tools are at doing the job they're designed for.

Evolution in warfare is as old as warfare. Saying their better and smarter and we shouldn't even try because they'll adapt is to ignore the fact that we also adapt, improvise and overcome, and we do it a lot better than they do.

Better? Not in the way that matters. The insurgents in Iraq are adapting far faster than US forces, and in insurgent warfare, speed in adapting is usually the most important aspect, usually far more important than organization and available force which is what the US does 'better'.

The real problem is that Al Qaeda are only interested in death and destruction, which is at least one hundred times easier than what we are trying to do.

I agree with you there, and this is usually the case when dealing with an insurgency. The problem is that we're trying to be 100 times better at reaching our goal than they are at reaching theirs, instead of changing the situation to make our goals easier or their goals harder.

The real problem is that Al Qaeda are only interested in death and destruction, which is at least one hundred times easier than what we are trying to do.

No doubt. They have been in constant change since the start. Just as we correct for the change they change tactics again. Hence we'll be capturing/killing them for a long long time. AQ is in offense mode all the time. We have no choice but to keep fighting them.

It would sure be easier if AQ had something to lose.

We will be capturing/killing them for a long long time. I doubt they'll change their ways of thinking.

Maybe not their thinking, but it certainly will change their tactics, and that doesn't usually work out too well for us.

That's probably the case but it's not a get one guy and win type deal. We will be capturing/killing them for a long long time. I doubt they'll change their ways of thinking.