Cliff May comments on the inanity of the notion that the problem in Iraq are caused by resentment of foreign occupation:

So when Iraq day laborers are mass-murdered by a suicide bomber, when teachers are taken from their classrooms, lined up and shot — that’s because the killers “detest foreign occupation”? Isn’t that a rather odd way to express it?

And when a Sunni uses a power drill to torture a Shia to death, or when a Shia death squad drives a Sunni family from their home, that’s “resistance” which “prevails in the end”? I think I recall the French Resistance taking a somewhat different approach.

This is as mindless as the notion that settling the Israeli/"Palestinian" issue is either a necessary or sufficient condition for peace in the rest of the region.

In that case, we should get out of there. We can't "win" against people who are bent on murdering each other. Why waste any more American lives?

Because many of them are bent on murdering us as well. We need to either kill them, or dissuade them, and better over there than over here.

I don't remember Bush or anyone else saying the Iraqis wanted to murder Americans. I think what was said was that the masses were being murdered by Saddam and we were going to free them. If Rand is right about many of them wanting to kill us now, the Iraqis must have changed their minds on that subject.

One wonders whether all this killing may have something to do with our continuing presence. It is clear that the Iraqis are killing each other in much greater numbers now than before we went in. Sen. Graham has mentioned after his recent visit to Baghdad that the last time he was there he went rug shopping and this time he could only venture out in a tank and that it may be the most dangerours place on the planet.

Seems like one downward spiral of civil comity ever since we moved over there. If you were a simple minded chemist looking at Iraq as a test tube, it would be clear that our going in there must have added something pretty volatile to the contents.

If Rand is right about many of them wanting to kill us now, the Iraqis must have changed their minds on that subject.

When I say many of them did, I mean enough to cause problems, not a majority or even a significant minority. You've never heard of Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Seems like one downward spiral of civil comity ever since we moved over there. If you were a simple minded chemist looking at Iraq as a test tube, it would be clear that our going in there must have added something pretty volatile to the contents.

That's pretty simple minded, all right. It wasn't what was added. It was what was subtracted--a brutal dictator that retained a monopoly on the use of force.

Well DUH TNT. We went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam, AQ moves into Iraq to get rid of us. Oh but your conclusion is that it's all the big bad US of A's fault.

Should we just let AQ have it's way and leave? Do you deny that AQ is the one primary driving force behind ALL of the sectarian violence? Or is that too complicated for your simplistic test tube analogy?

"better over there than here."

I agree. Plus, something that gets lost in the MSM drumbeat about how we are "losing" in Iraq:

Is Saddam in power any more?
Are we having to permanently deal with Saddam's government, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and flying patrols? (Although we didn't have as many deaths then, we were still spending people's lifetimes there, with nothing to show for it.)
Does the corrupt oil for food program exist any longer, enriching dictators and allowing Saddam to undermine the sanctions?
Can Saddam wait us out and then restart his nuclear program now?
Is anyone worried about Iraq making weapons of mass destruction and giving them to terrorists? (Iran yes, Iraq no).
Has there been any major terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11?
Where do all the people who want to fight America go right now?
Are most of the people of Iraq glad Saddam was stopped?

If this is such a defeat, I can hardly wait to see what a victory looks like.

Post is broken in IE... :(

Cecil, I didn't mean to say this our fault. It (the coming Sunni-Shia war) may have all happened anyway. We just happened to be the folks who let a very large cat out of the bag.

The real shame is that our intelligence and analysis was/is so weak or was so compromised, that we could anticipate so little of the scenario that has followed.

The only thing keeping the Shia and Sunni from slaughering each other right now is the presence of the US military in Iraq. Staying the course until the Iraqi's have their crap together may cost another few thousand US Soldiers and maybe tens of thousands of Iraqis.

If you consider the war in Iraq as an isolated conflict it comes down to millions dead vs thousands dead. If you consider the war in Iraq as part of the long war the choice is already a no brainer as withdrawl would create far more problems.

At least that's how I see it.

TNT says: The real shame is that our intelligence and analysis was/is so weak or was so compromised, that we could anticipate so little of the scenario that has followed.

As to not having enough intel, I agree. Humint was so scarce in this case, its tragic. The previous administration's cutting of Human Intel for more technological intel was terrible. Even with the intelligence they had back then, no one then anticipated the scenario either.

Point being, even with all the intel you could ever want, anticipating what your enemy will do is a risky business. We are somewhat predictable by nature, but not always.

rjschwartz etc, if our (redefined if necessary) purpose in being over there is to keep the Sunni and Shia from slaughtering each other, then that is definitely a noble role. I see that as much more meaningful than saying we are there to fight a war, which war to me is undefined and unfocused. Bush should really come out and say this. It would be hard for any liberal to resist the goal of AVOIDING a war between two parties ready to slaughter each other. That's how I see it anyway. He would then have the support of his base and also a majority of liberals and give us the national will to pursue this goal.

In addition it would save us the huge embarrassment of being responsible for the slaughter that has started.

Simberg says :
"Because many of them are bent on murdering us as well. We need to either kill them, or dissuade them, and better over there than over here."

I guess the question to my mind was How many Iraqi's
died on 9/11?

How many Saudi's died on 9/11?

Because of course Osama bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world with designs on killing Americans.

anonymous:

The answer to both of your questions is "not enough".

ah Fletcher,

ever the tough guy of the keyboard brigade.

Have you come up with your nuclear bombing plan
for the middle east? I'd love to see your plan to
use nukes to clear out jerusalem.

Actually, anonymous, neither you or I have to worry about that. If bleeding-heart terrorist apologists didn't prevent it, the Israelis would do that in short order. Clubs and guns would be quite good enough. As would a 30-foot wall; difficult to throw rocks and bombs over.

Fletcher

Let the israelis fight their own wars in the middle east.

The american's don't need to fight for Israel and the Likud.

anonymous:

You really don't get it, do you?

When your home town (or nearest city if you live in a small town) goes up in smoke, will you be singing from the same song sheet - or will you, like the rest of America, be baying for blood, and telling the Commander in Chief to turn the Islamic world into a carpet of smoking skeletons that glows in the dark?

Islam is the enemy. Islam, as it now is, will always be the enemy. They have two medium-term choices; grow up, the way the Christian Church did, or DIE.

I'm not particular which. The whole Islamic world is not worth the life of one American or British soldier. Or the half-trillion dollars the American government has wasted so far - so much of real use could have been done with that cash!

simberg says : "Cliff May comments on the inanity of the notion that the problem in Iraq are caused by resentment of foreign occupation:"

Condi Rice : "One interesting point is that poll after poll after poll shows that while, obviously, the Iraqis don't like occupation"

DOn Rumsfeld : " “ending the occupation would enhance the security situation because the Iraqis don’t like occupation”.

George Bush says " They are under occupation, they don't
like it, neither would I"

So simberg is calling Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush Inane.