Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Man, you really need to clean up your blogrolls. I'd say a good 50% (of the ones I clicked on) of the "daily reading" and "other worthy blogs" are 404 or "register this domain" pages.

Posted by Andy at November 1, 2007 06:00 AM

Before we removed Saddam, no al Qaeda in Iraq (at least amongst the general population).

After we removed Saddam, an opportunity was created in Anbar province for al Qaeda to infiltrate in support of Sunnis fearful of Shia rule in Baghdad. al Qaeda did indeed move in.

al Qaeda was stupid and angered the Anbar Sunni chiefs. Demands for intermarriage and killing chiefs who opposed al Qaeda was part of that stupidity.

Sunni chiefs asked US help in getting rid of al Qaeda and they are now pretty much eradicated.

Okay, I agree with all of the above.

What's the problem?

= = =

PS -- If demands for inter-marriage and calls to place religious affiliation (Islam) ahead of tribal and clan affiliation were what caused the falling out between the Anbar Sunni and al Qaeda (which is what Totten and Yon have reported) then it seems clear enough that al Qaeda was not in Anbar before Saddam removal.

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2007 06:26 AM

Bill, as far as I know no one has claimed that Al Qaeda was in Anbar prior to Saddam's removal, so why are you wasting my disk space and bandwidth with a straw man?

Is it just because that's what Bill does?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 1, 2007 06:33 AM

Man, you really need to clean up your blogrolls.

Yes, the garden has needed weeding for some time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 1, 2007 06:34 AM

I seem to recall the original leader of AQI, Zarqawi, being in Iraq pre-war.

Posted by Al at November 1, 2007 07:56 AM

I seem to recall the original leader of AQI, Zarqawi, being in Iraq pre-war.

He was. As was Abu Nidal, with Saddam's blessing.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 1, 2007 08:07 AM

One of the stated reasons for taking the fight to Iraq (Middle East) was to confront the anti-American terrorist problem on it's own 'home' field. To draw the fighters into a confrontation in one spot as opposed to many spots or worse, in the U.S. proper.

Whether you agree with such a strategy or not , it appears to have had a good deal of success.

Posted by doubled at November 1, 2007 08:15 AM

Perhaps White will tell us which of the Dem presidential candidates now agree with him that the US should have combat forces in Iraq if said candidate gets elected. (Supporting links would be nice.) For the remainder, are they lying or wrong? Which one is an argument for electing them?

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 1, 2007 08:59 AM

All of the leading current Democratic POTUS candidates are horribly muddled with respect to Iraq policy and Iran policy.

But then again, so are all the GOP candidates.

Problem is, IMHO, it is very far from clear how we should best proceed.

My prediction? Hillary will be elected and will pursue a much muddled version of stay the course zig-zagging as she triangulates "hawks and doves" trying to please everyone and no one.

We will continue to move sideways and the Democratic party will come to "own" our Iraqi adventure in much the same way Richard Nixon became the "Vietnam President" notwithstanding the historical fact that JFK & LBJ were the responsible parties.

"Nixon in a pantsuit" is one growing meme.

Anyway, I predict little daylight between POTUS Hillary or POTUS Mitt Romney concerning Mesopotamia.

Rudy? Heh! Only God can predict what he would do.

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2007 10:04 AM

That depends on whether the manpower pool of the terrorists is static or dynamic.

If there were a fixed number of "terrorists" in 2003 then yes, it appears we are eradicating them.

If however a poorly run counter insurgency will generate additional terrorists then the answer is far less clear.

What is unknown (IMHO) is whether the al Qaeda cancer has been growing unchecked in Pakistan even whilst we eradicate AQ's attempted colonization of Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2007 10:07 AM

PS - Here is my personal take on Hillary's position on most everything:

"Yes. Uh, No. Actually, its maybe. Well okay, I think we should form a study group and I will get back to you."

Posted by Bill White at November 1, 2007 10:11 AM

"My prediction? Hillary will be elected and will pursue a much muddled version of stay the course zig-zagging as she triangulates "hawks and doves" trying to please everyone and no one."

My prediction is her pro-illegal amnesty votes are going to sink her like a lead Albatross in the next election.

Illegal immigration and border security are shaping up the be the signature issues next year with the waining of Iraq as a troublesome issue for the Republicans.

Don't believe me? Look at Niki Tsongas and her squeaker during the special election in Massachusetts last month. Her pro-illegal immigration nearly sank her in the midst of the bluest of the blue regions in the country. If a name like Tsongas can barely hold that seat in that district, that does not bode well at all for your team.

We know how to sink the S.S. Hillary Bill, we are just waiting for you guys to launch her first.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 1, 2007 12:03 PM

Bill White White wrote:
"Rudy? Heh! Only God can predict what he would do."

Yup, only God knows for sure but the rest of us can try to figure out a thing or two too. If you missed it I highly recommend reading his Foreign Affairs piece (full text provided freely without any strings attached).

Posted by Habitat Hermit at November 1, 2007 01:08 PM

There won't be much crying over here if Hillary wins the nomination and is then sunk. Better to watch Giuliani screw up big time, as he certainly will if he keeps his current slew of advisers, than have Hillary sink and taint the entire Democratic party as her priapist husband did.

Regarding the illegal immigration issue, Mr. Puckett is right. The GOP has found its equivalent of gay marriage for 2008. Paranoia and Xenophobia rule. Even all those GOPers who supported the immigration bill now smell red meat and are vociferously banging the drums shrieking of brown skinned hordes swarming across the border. Rather pathetic really. And some of them are actually libertarians!

Just hope it doesn't take an ugly turn. One never knows where things can wind up when the people are intentionally wound up. Islamofascism to Hispanobashing to conflating and confusing Obama with Osama in a pandering wink-wink to the base. But of course the base isn't racist, not at all.

Mr. Puckett, don't you feel somewhat depressed that the only way you guys win is by promoting one or another form of fear? That must be the new definition of conservatism - petrification of the public heart into unrelenting anxiety so as to win the Xa-nax popping masses.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at November 1, 2007 02:27 PM

" to conflating and confusing Obama with Osama in a pandering wink-wink to the base."

Since when did Ted Kennedy become a Republican?

"Regarding the illegal immigration issue, Mr. Puckett is right. The GOP has found its equivalent of gay marriage for 2008. Paranoia and Xenophobia rule. Even all those GOPers who supported the immigration bill now smell red meat and are vociferously banging the drums shrieking of brown skinned hordes swarming across the border. Rather pathetic really. And some of them are actually libertarians!"

"A nation without borders is no nation at all."--Ronald Wilson Reagan.

"Mr. Puckett, don't you feel somewhat depressed that the only way you guys win is by promoting one or another form of fear? That must be the new definition of conservatism - petrification of the public heart into unrelenting anxiety so as to win the Xa-nax popping masses."

Don't you feel somewhat depressed that your entire argument is one gigantic strawman?

What is wrong with a rational fear? Perhaps that is why Britan is headed down the bowl of history's toilet, it fears the irrational and ignores the rational. Better to fear the Christian boogeyman and the evil Joos instead. It would first require deconstruting the Socialist lie that is the sand your society is now built upon. A lie your society holds so dear that it clings to it like a falling man to an outcropping root.

Let me know how that Sharia law thing works out for London in a few years ok?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 1, 2007 03:04 PM

T'n'T sounds as if the GOP has already won the '08 election and he promotes Giuliani as President? Nice! Keep up the good work ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at November 1, 2007 03:27 PM

How does one equate "illegal immigration" to paranoia and xenophobia?

Here's a challenge, try visiting Europe without a passport.

Posted by Leland at November 2, 2007 08:13 AM

Whether you agree with such a strategy or not , it appears to have had a good deal of success.>>

Of course, one would have to demonstrate that the number of actual confrontations (attacks) around the world have decreased since we went into Iraq. Which one cannot.

One would also have to demonstrate that the number of attacks, or planned (and thankfully, foiled) attacks, in the US have decreased. Which one also cannot.

If we went there to prevent them from coming here, why are we still finding them here?

Posted by at November 2, 2007 12:03 PM

Rand,

I thought you banned this moron and his electronic diarrhea?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 2, 2007 12:43 PM

Mike, apparently he couldn't stay away. If there was some site that kept bothering me to the point that I kept getting kicked off of it due to irrational behavior, eventually I'd stop visiting.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 2, 2007 04:08 PM

I think Rand needs to stop letting us knoow in advance about free ice cream shortages and the projected duration.

Our resident slime-mold seems to be enabled by any announcements that the cat will be away.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 2, 2007 05:07 PM

Rand,
Perhaps you could do an alternate-history version with President Kerry having brought the troops home and blaming Bush for Al Qaeda's control of Iraq.

Posted by A at November 5, 2007 01:15 AM

Post a comment