Iraq? What's that?

/MSM

Optimistically Pessimistic...?

Being a great threat to myself...Ah the good old days...

The United States has basically won the war in Iraq. No insurgent or terrorist group can declare victory or claim Americans are evacuating Iraq’s cities because they were beaten. America’s most modest foreign policy objectives there have been largely secured. Saddam Hussein’s toxic regime has been replaced with a more or less consensual government. I doubt very much that Iraq will seriously threaten the United States or its neighbors any time soon.

Give Obama time. He'll fuck it up.
///

re: #3 reloadingisnotahobby

Being a great threat to myself...Ah the good old days...

I read that - Iraq as a threat to itself - as quite realistic.

re: #5 Dianna

I read that - Iraq as a threat to itself - as quite realistic.

/ The category could be somewhat broader, and still be just as true.

(are you still mad at me?)

re: #5 Dianna
So did I...
Was making a bad joke...
I'll shut up now...

Obama has already screwed up a historic chance to cement a sea change in the Middle east by turning his back on the budding Iranian revolt. He'll figure out a way to undo Iraq as well. I have supreme confidence in his poor judgement.

re: #6 Naso Tang

/ The category could be somewhat broader, and still be just as true.

(are you still mad at me?)

No.

We OK?

And Obama takes credit in 5...4...3...

re: #7 reloadingisnotahobby

So did I...
Was making a bad joke...
I'll shut up now...

Hey, when alone, alone, all, all alone, alone on a wide blue thread...jokes are all we've got.

re: #11 Dianna

Hey, when alone, alone, all, all alone, alone on a wide blue thread...jokes are all we've got.

Do it!

re: #11 Dianna

The open thread went puny...
Then ya bump up to a serious thread and it takes a while...
Know what I mean...

If Iraq was still under Saddam's control when Iran said they were working on a nuke, do you think Saddam would have let it slide or do you think there would have been Iran/Iraq II?

Senator Reid, is the war still lost?

Well, we spent how many billions of $ and lost how many hundreds of people there? Guarantee it won't hold. What a waste due to George Bush's infantile fantasy that because Muslims worship the same god as Christians that they could be shown The Way to Democracy with a little nudge and deposing their dictator. Nonsense. Combine tribalism, with Islam, with Arab culture, with deserts, and what do you get? A country that can only be held together by dictatorship, and that means breaking eggs to make baklava. Bush's folly cleaved this nation, racked up immense debt, and helped pave the way for Obama. Thanks, Dub. We hardly misunderestimated you.

re: #15 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Or was that Murtha?
Or both...Pair of fools...

re: #14 Cannadian Club Akbar

If Iraq was still under Saddam's control when Iran said they were working on a nuke, do you think Saddam would have let it slide or do you think there would have been Iran/Iraq II?

If saddam was still in power in Iraq he would have gone after Iran well before now. And of course that would have been Bush's fault for not going in and removing saddam.

re: #12 debutaunt

Do it!

Caught that one, did you?

re: #18 JohnnyReb

If saddam was still in power in Iraq he would have gone after Iran well before now. And of course that would have been Bush's fault for not going in and removing saddam.

Ding!

Hey, Plugs? Still wanna' divide Iraq into three parts?

re: #16 SFGoth

So...you think we should have picked a new dictator, kissed him on both cheeks and walked away, whistling?

People never get a chance to even try doing things differently?

And Iraq's not desert, primarily. It's between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. There's extensive marshes, fertile floodplains, and quite interesting mountain terrain.

re: #17 reloadingisnotahobby

Or was that Murtha?
Or both...Pair of fools...

Pair of motherfucking traitorous assholes.

The United States has basically won the war in Iraq.

Obama will do one of two things:

1. Claim his "Cairo Speech" is the reason ... (or)
2. Do whatever he can to undermine Iraq so that he can say "I told you so, this was a war of choice and a big mistake."

Of course, he will consult the latest polls before he decides which one.

“Speaking of outside organizations," I said, "what do people here think about Iran?”

“Iran has lots of influence,” Sermad said. “They support the militias, Jaysh al Mahdi, and the Badr Corps. They support some of the Iraqi parliament members. Iran is going to invade Iraq as soon as American soldiers withdraw.”

Now that is an interesting comment!

Kudos for Totten to continue reporting on the situation in Iraq and showing how things are far more fluid and far less clear cut than the big media outlets would have people think. It's not all hunky dory, but it surely isn't the quagmire that all too many in the media were shrieking about even after the Surge showed its results.

Now, the threat comes from the US withdrawing far too soon before it can help get the nation. Moving out too soon will undermine the efforts to professionalize the Iraqi military. Corruption remains rampant, but that's pretty much a staple of Middle Eastern culture. It's a way of life, and until Iraqis realize that this isn't merely a foreign imposed conspiracy, but a mindset that must be broken, the poor standards of living will continue.

re: #24 _RememberTonyC

Obama will do one of two things:

1. Claim his "Cairo Speech" is the reason ... (or)
2. Do whatever he can to undermine Iraq so that he can say "I told you so, this was a war of choice and a big mistake."

Of course, he will consult the latest polls before he decides which one.

He doesn't have to worry about polls, he can do both and the Ministry of Truth MSM will keep the official public record straight for him!

“When I hear about the schedule for American forces leaving Iraq,” the man said, “I get scared. I hope we get a nice life here in Iraq and that you can make it home safe.”

And I'm scared for them. Growing pains indeed.

re: #16 SFGoth

I don't downing ding. But if I was ever tempted to do so, it would be because of your comments.

Do you remember 9/11? America was attacked. Do you remember that we had a leader in the Oval Office who had a spine? I suggest you have forgetten and think "W's" decisions were based on they way the world is today.

If anyone has an "infitile fantasy" it would be you. I don't think I've misunderestimated you.

rant off.

It's obvious that we won in Iraq. MSM stopped writing about it.

re: #30 SurferDoc

It's obvious that we won in Iraq. MSM stopped writing about it.

"What's not said speaks loudest".

Iraq is the strategic center of the Middle East and the Islamic World. It is essentially the keystone. Positive change there will impact the rest of the region more so than any other state. The development of a prosperous moderate Iraq will impact Iran, Syria, the Gulf States, Jordon, even Saudi Arabia. It would do the Obama Administration well not to take their eye off of Iraq.

re: #16 SFGoth

That's just pessimism, you can't be sure of any of that.

A lot of your pessimistic view are likely, and I agree with a lot of your analysis of Dubya, but there are more optimistic views that this will still come out right. I think it is doable, I'm that much of an optimist. What I don't know is if we've really done it. I'm giving a good outcome about a 51% odds right now, how's that for optimism!

re: #25 Kenneth

Now that is an interesting comment!

It gave me shivers when I read it.

re: #1 CIA Reject

Iraq? What's that?

/MSM

But they also don't give an awful lot of time to Afghanistan, now that it's 0bama's war distraction.

re: #25 Kenneth

“Speaking of outside organizations," I said, "what do people here think about Iran?”

“Iran has lots of influence,” Sermad said. “They support the militias, Jaysh al Mahdi, and the Badr Corps. They support some of the Iraqi parliament members. Iran is going to invade Iraq as soon as American soldiers withdraw.”

Now that is an interesting comment!

I don't think Iran will be that overt. They'll use their terrorists to push Iraq into the role of an Iranian client.
For example, I think they're more likely to set off bombs at Shi'ite mosques, then send in Iranians to "protect" the mosques.
A direct invasion could result in Iraq asking for and receiving help from the US, for example.
Oh wait, look at who's President.
Never mind.

re: #32 Rexatosis

To bolster your point,

Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran?
Given the connections between Iraq and Iran, it's not as unlikely as it sounds.
By Christopher Hitchens

The most exciting and underreported news of the past few weeks in Iran has been that the emerging challenger to the increasingly frantic and isolated "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. And Rafsanjani has recently made a visit to the city of Najaf in Iraq to confer with Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, a long-standing opponent of the Khamenei doctrines, as well as meeting in the city of Qum with Jawad al-Shahristani, who is Sistani's representative in Iran. It is this dialectic between Iraqi and Iranian Shiites that underlies the flabbergasting statement issued from Qum last weekend to the effect that the Ahmadinejad government has no claim to be the representative of the Iranian people.

re: #25 Kenneth

Now that is an interesting comment!

I think they (Iran) would have an easier time of it than they did during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq's army isn't as strong as it was in the '80s.

re: #36 Kosh's Shadow

I agree. But what was interesting is that is what these Iraqis believe.

The United States has basically won the war in Iraq

Thanks in large part to the Leadership and Courage of President George Bush, and to the sacrifices of many brave Americans and Iraqis

and

In spite of the cowards , and partisan hacks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who did everything in their power to see us lose this war

re: #9 Dianna

No.

We OK?

Of course.

Morning all! I would hope, but doubt, that the administration has had a meeting with the Iraqi leadership, and covered at least the following:

As you know, the president of the U.S. has pledged to remove American troops from Iraq as soon as possible. Before we do so, please answer the following questions:

1. Is your leadership secure, and able to fend off attempts by insurgents or other nations to undermine your legitimacy and authority?
2. Is the Iraqi military up to strength, loyal to the democracy, and in a position to protect your country from insurgents or invasion by your neighbors?
3. Is the Iraqi police force up to speed, loyal to the democracy, and in a position to maintain law and order in both the major cities and rural areas?
4. Is the government comprised of representatives from all the interested factions in Iraq, and are you confident that these representatives can work together to move the country forward?
5. Are you confident that the people of Iraq are ready to take the gamble that comes as a result of our decision to withdraw? Do they actually want the Americans to leave at this particular point?

If the answer to any of these questions is "No" or "Not Sure", please tell us now. Our withdrawal from Southeast Asia thirty-five years ago resulted in the deaths of millions in Vietnam, Cambodia, and other areas in the region. We don't wish to make that mistake again, and we're pretty damn sure you don't want us to either.

re: #25 Kenneth

re: #34 MandyManners

Iran has too many internal problems to even think about invading Irag at this time, not to mmention them trying to dodge the world community vis a vis nukes

re: #40 Shug

Thanks in large part to the Leadership and Courage of President George Bush, and to the sacrifices of many brave Americans and Iraqis

and

In spite of the cowards , and partisan treasonous hacks like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who did everything in their power to see us lose this war

Sorry. Felt compelled to edit...

re: #38 Ward Cleaver

If Iran overtly invaded with their army, the US military would be back in a flash with overwhelming air power. The mullahs are not that stupid. They will use their Iraqi proxies to kill other Iraqis.

re: #33 itellu3times

That's just pessimism, you can't be sure of any of that.

A lot of your pessimistic view are likely, and I agree with a lot of your analysis of Dubya, but there are more optimistic views that this will still come out right. I think it is doable, I'm that much of an optimist. What I don't know is if we've really done it. I'm giving a good outcome about a 51% odds right now, how's that for optimism!

It was surprising to me when W went after Iraq, but once the deal was done our troops needed to be supported. We have won & it might turn out well in the end.
Afgahnistan does need to be done all out. Obama really can't back off, because he made such a big deal about Bush taking his eye off of the ball & not paying full attention to Afgahnistan because of Iraq.

Remember : The Left who might like to take credit cheered on a show thrower and claimed that our soldiers were cold blooded murderers and that This war is lost

re: #35 Ward Cleaver

But they also don't give an awful lot of time to Afghanistan, now that it's 0bama's war distraction.

Hey, it's all ice cream and kite flying now that the evil GWB is gone!

///

re: #18 JohnnyReb

If saddam was still in power in Iraq he would have gone after Iran well before now. And of course that would have been Bush's fault for not going in and removing saddam.

As to your first sentence, and the problem is? Wouldn't *that* have been a wonderful denouement?

re: #32 Rexatosis

Iraq is the strategic center of the Middle East and the Islamic World. It is essentially the keystone. Positive change there will impact the rest of the region more so than any other state. The development of a prosperous moderate Iraq will impact Iran, Syria, the Gulf States, Jordon, even Saudi Arabia. It would do the Obama Administration well not to take their eye off of Iraq.

I don't think the foreign policy lightwieghts in the Obama Administration, including the President himself, understand this point. Secretary Clinton might, but it seems that President Obama is marginalizing her.

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, the top Shia cleric in Iraq, is a "quietist", meaning he supports democracy, informed by Shia morality, but not governed by clerics. He insists cleric should have no role in politics. He is Iranian by birth and now the most influential Ayatollah in the Shia sect in Iran.

re: #50 SFGoth

As to your first sentence, and the problem is? Wouldn't *that* have been a wonderful denouement?

You're not serious?

A vital world resource inaccessible because of spreading instability and chaos?

I'm carefully ignoring anything but realpolitik issues, here. But I think you've lost your mind.

re: #22 Dianna

So...you think we should have picked a new dictator, kissed him on both cheeks and walked away, whistling?

People never get a chance to even try doing things differently?

And Iraq's not desert, primarily. It's between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. There's extensive marshes, fertile floodplains, and quite interesting mountain terrain.

No, we should have just taken him out and left. If someone came along and acted up, we take them out. Frankly, I think we could've used back channels to "buy" Saddam out assuming he really did have a real WMD program, and especially if (as it turned out) he didn't. Instead, we made a moral show of the need for Democracy, which made it impossible to send a credible message that: look pal, you either give up this BS about WMD or we're going to wipe you out. We're going to bomb your government infrastructure, everywhere you might be, and your WMD facilities. If you think you need WMD to stop an Iranian invasion, we reach an agreement: you stop WMD, you give unconditional access to our inspectors, and we'll protect you in case Iran invades. That solves quite a number of problems.

re: #54 buzzsawmonkey

Interesting. Maybe the Iranian movement towards democracy is, er, Sistani-able.

One could also say ... Sistani, et "al"

re: #56 pre-Boomer Marine brat

One could also say ... Sistani, et "al"

(his name is al-Sistani)

re: #50 SFGoth

Bush made the right decision to topple Saddam. The alternative was leaving him in power. Iraqi agents had made several overtures to Al Qaeda to provide them with chemical weapons (yes, Iraq did still have a small quantity).

The problem was the planning for post-invasion was criminally incompetent. Rumsfeld was convinced he could do it on the cheap. Then the various competing US departments got in and started working at cross-purposes and made a total screw-up. The surge saved Iraq. It can still go back to chaos, but at least now it has a chance at normalcy.

And yet there is still at least one suicide bombing every single day, killing dozens. The current withdrawal was set up by the previous administration and now Obama wants to withdraw more.

But the article makes a good point. At least they won't threaten us. What do we care if they kill one another now.

BTW, the HBO series "House of Saddam" paints a chilling picture of how it was before! That Uday was nuts! Although at least under them it was a "stable" country and didn't really pose a problem for us.

re: #29 midwestgak

I don't downing ding. But if I was ever tempted to do so, it would be because of your comments.

Do you remember 9/11? America was attacked. Do you remember that we had a leader in the Oval Office who had a spine? I suggest you have forgetten and think "W's" decisions were based on they way the world is today.

If anyone has an "infitile fantasy" it would be you. I don't think I've misunderestimated you.

rant off.

Yeah, you're right. I forgot we were attacked by Iraq. We also had a leader who had the spine to go after the country that nearly every one of those terrorists was from, and the one that is the leading exporter of Wahhabism -- oh wait, we didn't invade Saudi Arabia and do regime change. What about Iran? Iran actually has sent agents around the world to kill people and bomb things. If there's one Muslim country in which installing Democracy would work, it's Iran (which is not Arab). W also had enough spine to call Islam the ROP. Great. 9/11 was the emotional pretext for Iraq. Let's go after every country that gave succor to the 9/11 terrorists. So when Iraq reverts to the mean in a year, give or take, then what? We go back? You're a tool.

re: #54 buzzsawmonkey

The New Democrats by Abbas Milani

The roots of Iran's current divide to a great extent lie at the turn of the century, when the country's ayatollahs essentially split into two camps on questions of religion and politics. The first was led by Ayatollah Na'ini, an advocate of what is called the "Quietist" school of Shiism--today best exemplified in the character and behavior of Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq. According to Na'ini, true "Islamic government" could only be established when the twelfth imam returned. Such a government would be the government of God on earth: Its words, deeds, laws, and courts would be absolute and could tolerate no errors. But humans, Na'ini said, were fallible and thus ill-fitted to the sacred task of establishing God's government. As the pious await the return of the infallible twelfth imam, they must in the interim search for the best form of government. And the form most befitting this period, Na'ini argued, was constitutional democracy. The role of ayatollahs under this arrangement would be to "advise" the rulers and ensure that laws inimical to sharia were not implemented. But it would not be to rule the country themselves.

There is a stronger argument to be made that Iraqi democracy will spread to Iran before Iranian Khomeneism can spread to Iraq.

re: #60 SFGoth

Are you channeling Michael Moore today or what?

Just a couple of brief comments on the Iraq War and US deficits.
1. The discussion of cost of the Iraq War by the left (and Buchanan/Paul Right) assumes that the costs of the war would not be borne. This is fundamentally incorrect. At best the US would still have maintained the no-fly zones and basic military siege/containment with fewer allies and escalating costs (compared to pre-2003 spending). This saved expenditure is never subtracted from the "cost" of the war. Also it is highly unlikely the United States would not have stayed static in its operations and would have put more resources into peripheral campaigns (Horn of Africa, Philippines, Thailand, etc.) chasing Al-Qs rather than having them congregate to a central theatre where they were much easier to find (such peripheral campaigns would be rather expensive would have easily eaten much of the perceived savings from "not fighting in Iraq.")
2. The actual defense spending of the United States is rather small as a portion of the economy (we are south of 6% GDP). These costs in no way fit the central thesis of Prof. Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers, which postulated that Empires collapse from the economic costs of imperial overreach. The US military budget would have to be a much larger segment of the GDP to create such a collapse (25% and we have some problems)
3. The cause of the deficits during the years of Bush the Younger was uncontrolled domestic spending and social programs (Social Security/Medicare) and these are tame relative to the expenditures, deficit, and debt currently being run up by Congress and the Obama Administration.
4. This is basic Economics and Math not politics

re: #58 Kenneth

Bush made the right decision to topple Saddam. The alternative was leaving him in power. Iraqi agents had made several overtures to Al Qaeda to provide them with chemical weapons (yes, Iraq did still have a small quantity).

The problem was the planning for post-invasion was criminally incompetent. Rumsfeld was convinced he could do it on the cheap. Then the various competing US departments got in and started working at cross-purposes and made a total screw-up. The surge saved Iraq. It can still go back to chaos, but at least now it has a chance at normalcy.

Yeah, and what had Colin Powell been saying for years -- you don't go in w/o an exit strategy. It has a paper chance of becoming a modern nation. It won't happen. All of a sudden, hundreds, if not thousands of years of that's the way it is is suddenly going to stop? Look at Yugoslavia. After Tito died and communism fell, every fucking neighborhood wants their own country. Same will happen in Iraq. I'm will to make a 5 year bet on this.

“We won't be ready until young people replace the older generation in the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police,” she continued. “They need to replace the old Baath Party members who are still inside.”

Patience, grasshopper.

re: #62 Kenneth

Are you channeling Michael Moore today or what?

No, because Moore wouldn't have done anything, but man, a pizza would sound good right now. I have no problem with wiping people out, but not without a plan and not without the means to do it. We've fucking bankrupted our country and are going deeper into debt because of this. There's no doubt in my mind that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al., were looking for an opportunity to fix the mistake the British and French made in the 20's, and bring the people of Iraq into the modern world. I have no problem with that sentiment. But if you proceed with Bush's naivete on how it would play out, yeah, that makes it the wrong thing to do. We can no longer be the world's moralizer. We don't have the $.

Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are bigger threats than Iraq was. I'm not hearing anyone here calling for invading them.

re: #64 SFGoth

Yeah, and what had Colin Powell been saying for years -- you don't go in w/o an exit strategy. It has a paper chance of becoming a modern nation. It won't happen. All of a sudden, hundreds, if not thousands of years of that's the way it is is suddenly going to stop? Look at Yugoslavia. After Tito died and communism fell, every fucking neighborhood wants their own country. Same will happen in Iraq. I'm will to make a 5 year bet on this.

Yugoslavia was an artificial creation destined to fall apart. It was created out of several independent countries, 3 religious groups and multiple ethnic & linguistic sub-groups with long histories of mutual animosity.

Iraq, by contrast has been a political entity of one kind or another for the past 8,000 years. Islam is a relative newcomer in their neighborhood. The biggest threat to stability & democracy in Iraq in Iran and the Iranian mullahs days are numbered.

re: #67 SFGoth

Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are bigger threats than Iraq was. I'm not hearing anyone here calling for invading them.

we had to start somewhere ... democracy is messy. 10 years from now, this will be seen as a visionary move that required lots of guts. At least Bush had the courage to "man up" when confronted with a chance to alter history, which is more than our current POTUS seems willing to do.

re: #55 SFGoth

We owed the Islamic world a big one after 9/11.

Nothing we could do in Afghanistan was going to pay that debt.

Saddam's number came up, not that he was totally undeserving in his own right.

End of story.

This was supposed to be obvious to the meanest intellect, but Bush never ever said it out loud. So, who's the dummy?

re: #67 SFGoth

Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are bigger threats than Iraq was. I'm not hearing anyone here calling for invading them.

I would happily have substituted Saudi Arabia for Iraq.

re: #67 SFGoth

Saudi Arabia and Iran were and are bigger threats than Iraq was. I'm not hearing anyone here calling for invading them.

Osama bin Laden would agree with you. That was his hope when he attacked America on 9-11 that the US would respond by invading Saudi Arabia. Then the Muslim world would rally around against the Crusaders. Fortunately, Bush was smart enough to realize that and pulled US troops out of KSA and into Iraq. Al Qaeda followed them and were defeated there, creating a strong Muslim ally as an enemy of Al Qaeda.

The plan at the time was a quick war in Iraq and then move on to the next target. Rumsfeld had a list of 7 countries the US would invade & effect regime change. Syria, Iran, Sudan were all on the list. Hubris overtook Rumsfeld's plans.

re: #66 SFGoth

We've fucking bankrupted our country and are going deeper into debt because of this.

Oh man, you're not serious are you? The US economic mess has exactly zero to do with the Iraq war. Get a clue.

Totten sez:

The United States has basically won the war in Iraq

Uh -- we already knew that.

re: #71 itellu3times

If the US had invaded Saudi Arabia, then every Muslim country in the world would have defended Saudi Arabia. It would have been a colossal strategic failure for the US.

re: #72 Kenneth

Osama bin Laden would agree with you. That was his hope when he attacked America on 9-11 that the US would respond by invading Saudi Arabia.

I thought he anticipated the US would nuke Afghanistan, not that we would invade the Saudis.

Bush invade Saudi Arabia? Unlikely.

Obama invade Saudi Arabia? Ha.

Not that there's any particular call to do it right now, the Saudis are sort of kind of trying to be good boys and girls, sort of kind of.

re: #66 SFGoth

re: #67 SFGoth

Read my link in comment #74. Especially this part:

"The Iraq War was astronomically expensive. How can you call that a victory?

A: Just because a war was expensive doesn't mean it is therefore a defeat. Wars can be expensive and successful. In fact, most of the time a country must devote a majority or even all of its resources to win a war; I can't think of a cheap war that was brought to a successful conclusion.

In comparison to previous wars, as a percentage of GNP, the Iraq War was actually not particularly expensive, nor burdensome on the home front. From 2003 to 2008, did we have to grow "victory gardens"? Did we have to scrounge old tools to give to government scrap metal drives? Did we have a military draft? Were there shortages? No, no, no, and no. Yet in previous wars, we did endure all those things. Dollar-wise the Iraq War seemed expensive on paper, but American society continued to hum along, which can not be said of most previous wars."

re: #75 Kenneth

If the US had invaded Saudi Arabia, then every Muslim country in the world would have defended Saudi Arabia. It would have been a colossal strategic failure for the US.

It's an interesting alternate history scenario.

If the US could have cut a deal with, say, China, to back us up even just politically, in exchange for guess what, ...

re: #76 itellu3times

The grand strategy behind the invasion of Iraq was that it would put pressure on the surrounding countries to democratize. It would also lead to regime change in Syria & Iran. So far, the effect has been mixed at best, but we are starting to see cracks in the Iranian regime, at least in part as a consequence of what happened in Iraq.

RE # 51 Semper Gumbi

Unfortunately it seems the only foreign policy the Obama Administration seems to have studied is the "Stuart Smalley" "I'm Okay, your Okay" self-actualization and Oprah confessional psychobabble crap (see the "apology tours" and recent trip to Russia) and some cliffnotes on Marxist-Leninist theory. Then there is V.P. Joe (let's not let historical, geographical, economic facts get in the way of bloviating) Biden.

Now I've depressed myself:(

re: #78 itellu3times

The real war Al Qaeda, and their antecedents, have been fighting has been fighting for the past 20 years has been against the "apostate regimes" of the Muslim world. They attacked America to draw her in to the fight, hoping that would cause the Muslim world to rally round Al Qaeda. Bush was smart enough to engage local Muslim allies to fight Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda was stupid enough to kill Muslim civilians in terrorist attacks. Eventually, the popular mood as turned against Al Qaeda.

re: #81 Kenneth

The real war Al Qaeda, and their antecedents, have been fighting has been fighting for the past 20 years has been against the "apostate regimes" of the Muslim world. They attacked America to draw her in to the fight, hoping that would cause the Muslim world to rally round Al Qaeda. Bush was smart enough to engage local Muslim allies to fight Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda was stupid enough to kill Muslim civilians in terrorist attacks. Eventually, the popular mood as turned against Al Qaeda.

I think you're mistaking some rationalizations and PR for a much less focused real situation.

Al Qaeda attacked the US because they could.

They may have had some fuzzy ideas of what might happen next, but it hardly mattered. Though frankly, they did not anticipate as broad a response as Bush made, and if they had, they might have held off. Then again, that calls for more rationality than I think they have.

re: #82 itellu3times

The senior Al Qaeda strategists had a reason for attacking the US. They wrote about it even before 9-11. It wasn't just a random act of violence simply because they hated the US. The attacks had a purpose.

re: #80 Rexatosis

"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog gonnit, people like me!"

I'm sure I've heard Obama say that.

One more thing President Obama inherited from the previous administration, I guess?

40 people were killed in a bombing today in Baghdad.

re: #86 Ben Hur

Courtesy of Iran.

Totten: never hides his bias yet at the same time is objective, and in this case is extremely pragmatic. Very refreshing.

Murrow would be proud.

re: #83 Kenneth

The senior Al Qaeda strategists had a reason for attacking the US. They wrote about it even before 9-11. It wasn't just a random act of violence simply because they hated the US. The attacks had a purpose.

I'm not convinced.

The only reason was Islam.

All the rest is noise.

You may be more informed on this than I am, but I've never seen anything to convince me to take seriously most of their bloviating, they lie to us, they lie to themselves, they talk for effect, they change history, etc.

This is one of the best series ever. I hope he wins a Pulitzer, but of course, that would be against "left-leaning subject matter" bylaws in the decision process.

If I had any money, I'd give him a PayPal tip/donation, but times is tough this month.