Bithead-- it has been clearly established that there were no terrorists training camps in Iraq before the US invasion.

Really?

Better recheck your facts.

Nationalist? Or simply Sectarian?

It was clearly nationalist previously. Then some 2 million plus Iraqis were displaced internally plus another million plus left the country. Then there was all the ethnic cleansing. To be clear the largest humanitarian crisis *ever* happened on our watch.

I would suggest you look closely at the tensions that existed prior to the Iran/Iraq war.

That is the hope. But now the question becomes, How long do we have to stay there to insure the firm establishment of this "calming and stabilizing" influence? 50, 70, 100 years?

How long have we been in Germany, Japan, and Korea for exactly that purpose? Kosovo? Getting the picture yet?

There is a lot more oil in Iraq that many of those other countries, and if they got control of the country it would support their efforts, and the country is a lot more accessable to travel to other countries than for exampled land-locked Afghanistan.

Iraq was the best location to fight a war we did not start. If we had taken our heads out of our asses a decade or so earlier, it would have been much easier to prosecute this war.

Do you bother to read what you post?

Congress did not even authorise the more recent invasion because of AQ or Islamists:

...

10. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

11. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

...

18. Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

19. Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

20. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

21. Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Yes, we are fighting Islamists there - just as in the past we have fought pirates elsewhere. But not everywhere, and not simultaneously (even WWII had non-combatant "bad guys").

Congress did not even authorise the more recent invasion because of AQ or Islamists:
-------

The reasons:

1. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

2. Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

3. Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

4. Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

5. Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

6. Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

7. Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

8. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

9. Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

10. Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

11. Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

12. Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

13. Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

14. Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

15 Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

16 Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

17. Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

18. Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

19. Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

20. Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

21. Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

22. Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Therefore...

... once so established, such a democracy's very existance serves as a calming and stabilizing influence against radical Islam, for the remainder of the region.

That is the hope. But now the question becomes, How long do we have to stay there to insure the firm establishment of this "calming and stabilizing" influence? 50, 70, 100 years?

It was clearly nationalist previously. Then some 2 million plus Iraqis were displaced internally plus another million plus left the country. Then there was all the ethnic cleansing. To be clear the largest humanitarian crisis *ever* happened on our watch.

Now with this largely settled, it seems that we're moving into sectarian civil war between Shiite factions.

This isn't a war against foreign fighters. This is a civil war.

Again, why are we in Iraq?

Why do you keep repeating this canard?

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Why is no one else objecting to this dishonesty?

Is it just that everyone ignores bithead?

Um, no. No one is disputing there aren't some foreign fighters. But no one in the military disputes the fact that this is a nationalist insurgency and not a foreign invasion.

Nationalist? Or simply Sectarian?

ScottT... with all due respect... you don't know what you are talking about. Iraq has an anti-terror government as well by your logic. The question is whether the jihadist movement in Iraq is any more dangerous than that anywhere else.

Perhaps the question you ought to be asking is what gains are possible there, vs anywhere else.

If we have to win in Iraq, then why are we under no similar compulsion to intervene in all those other conflicts?

First, that we aren't intervening in other places around the world. We are.

Second, that to intervene we must be using the same means as Iraq. This is a very ironic position for someone who is advocating running away in Iraq. In short, lets create a dozen Iraqs to be consistent. It is like saying to use a hammer in one part of building a house, you must either stop building the house or use the hammer as the only tool for all aspects of building the house.

Third, as James notes, were are there now. To retreat will not be seen as an enlightened step of America rejecting going to Iraq in the first place (or second place depending on how you count the earlier 1990's episode). There is a reason why AQ was recruiting and sending people from many of the countries listed. The fact that those recruits are finding life in Iraq less pleasant as the Anabar awakening spreads is good news for Iraq and the rest of those countries. Osama based his strategy on showing America as being weak. To cave now would be to validate Obama's strategy with the caveat that it took longer than expected to break the US. That would make the situation worse in those countries he lists.

Morocco-based groups have been linked to attacks in Germany and Spain. Algerians to plots all over the place--from the U.S. to the Indonesia. Tunisian groups into Italy. And on and on and on. At this point, the most we have seen from Iraqi groups is a plot in Jordan, as far as I know. By any reasonable measure, the violent Islamist groups present in at least a dozen countries pose at least as large a threat to the United States and its allies as the groups active in Iraq.

Facts are sometimes unpleasant to consider... but that does not make them untrue.

The whole 2 war thesis shows that conservatives can be just as stupid as liberals when they over-analyze a problem.
As for the question at hand, the obvious answer is the size of the islamist push in each country. Plus there is an active US military effort, covert or otherwise in most of those other countries listed.

Um, no. No one is disputing there aren't some foreign fighters. But no one in the military disputes the fact that this is a nationalist insurgency and not a foreign invasion. The wiki you point to doesn't say how much of the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters and so your holding the flashlight under your chin and muttering darkly about definitions doesn't mean squat...

The bottom line is that we have been fighting against a sunni dominated nationalistic insurgency. With the "awakening" movement, many of these Sunnis turned against what little Al Qaeda "islamists" there were and they seem to have done a good job getting rid of them. Now we have a intra Shiite power struggle going on.

Again, nothing even close to your dark mutterings of a global conflict. We were refereeing a horrific civil war and now it looks as though we're going to referee another one.

Madness.