…If, that is, you believe the now-familiar reproductive formula credited to the mythical hydra-headed al Qaeda superbeast, who, we’re told, somehow replaces each dead jihadist with one hundred new ones. Which I admit to finding a bit strange—I mean, why not just begin with a billion or so jihadis and overwhelm the enemy that way, particularly if you have such a surplus of Knights of the Caliphate waiting in the wings—but then, I’m not all that up on my understanding of cultural differences. So, y’know, who am I to judge?
Anyway, “Air strike ‘kills seven terrorists’”:
THE US military said seven “terrorists” linked to al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq have been killed during an air strike today near the restive Iraqi city of Baquba.
“Coalition forces killed seven terrorists, wounded three, and detained an additional two terrorists during a raid in the vicinity of Baquba June 12,” the military said in a statement.
“The targeted terrorists have been linked to previous coalition operations and had ties to senior al-Qaeda leaders across Iraq.
“Intelligence also indicates this particular terrorist cell is involved in the facilitation of foreign fighters in the area.”
Me, I tend to read this as meaning we’ve offed 7 terrorists, which I regard as a net gain for humanity and civilization both. But then, I’m notorious for my inability to suss out the nuance from such news.
Oh well. That’s why God invented people like Kathy, I suppose.
(h/t Tim Blair)
It’s new math, Jeff.
to complete the ‘hydra’ analogy, remember, kiddos, that Hercules defeated the hydra, using fire to cauterize the neckholes
Two quick points: the US has C130 “Hercules” gunships flying around Al-Qaedaville.
and
Air Incendiary Devices cauterize stuff pretty well.
How can you tell it’s not a Reuters, CBC, BBC, or CNN report?
The word terrorist appears in the story.
From kathy’s website:
That’s why I’ll be home-schooling.
Jeff—how did you find “Kathy”?
To paraphrase Mr T—“I pity the (fool) New York City English students.”
Hopefully, the “treasure trove” of intelligence gathered last week will lead to the capture or killing of even more of these murderers.
Why? Damn it! Why?
Why did I click on that Kathy link? Why did I have to click again to see:
Good gawd! What was I thinking?
Because of the patriarchy, and the adultarchy (which is not the patriarchy, but merely an aspect of His Being), the Hydratic Equation doesn’t apply to women and children.
A glass coffin-lid, so to speakâ€â€the invisible downpressing hand of Teh Manâ€â€prevents the rising of a hundred through their every emptied fall. (<â€â€ew, poetic)
So, objectively, “numerous”x100 women and children were massacred.
(Or maybe they saw some guys maybe killed, through the dust. Or they were waiting in line for a nearby waterslide, and they saw some dust, yonder. Wire reporters can’t write, so who knows? Either way: [The military] is wrong. Times a hundred.)
Why is it that when Al Queda slaughters people that the Iraqi people don’t join with the coalition forces and hunt down and kill the terorists?
Oh, wait.
They do.
Hmm. One dead jihadi = one hundred new, live jihadis. That is a poser.
Maybe a certain UC Davis math professor could help us out here.
Yeah, Christopher, but it’s in quotes.
tw: intelligent. Progressives are “intelligent”.
I remember a professor back in B-school cautioning us of the folly of extrapolating geometric growth trends; he noted that when Elvis Presley died, there were maybe 10 professional Elvis impersonators – whereas two years after his death, there were hundreds. If you extrapolated from that, by the year 2050 or so, one out of every two people on the Earth would be an professional Elvis impersonator.
My point? At the rate the military is offing these s.o.b.’s, and using Kathy’s math, by the year 2100 one out of every two human beings on the earth will be an sequined jumpsuit-wearing, scarf-draping, hip-swiveling Elvis-impersonating member of al Queda.
Personally, I hope to be one of the 70s-era fat Elvis terrorists, rather than one of the 50’s “Jailhouse Rock” era Elvis terrorists, so I won’t have to watch my diet.
Allah akbar, y’all.
You necons don’t just get it do you? Al Qaeda is a step ahead of you again. They’re rolling over on their own people and getting you to kill them.
BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLES!!!!!
While I don’t agree w/ Kathy, I have to admit she was pretty funny on the Drew Carey Show though.
I too have a very hard time understanding the “logic” displayed, especially as it seems to always reach a conclusion that seems to be so totally hostile to the U.S. and our actions.
Yet this same “logic” never seems to be used by these people against our enemies. But what if it was? Then I suspect that perhaps something similar to what I have created below will appear. After the U.S. launches an offensive against al-Qaeda, do you ever read something like this in a left leaning publication? No. Why not?
“More violence on al Qaeda’s part will not defeat the U.S. and her allies. As soon as you kill one U.S. soldier, two more will spring up to take his place and thousands more Americans will be spurred to support the War on Terror. Face it, the violence hasn’t worked.
Al Qaeda must not retaliate for this latest American attack. To do so would only perpetuate the cycle of violence. Al Qaeda bombing follows U.S. bombing follows Al Qaeda bombing…. Where does it all end? Only once al Qaeda puts away its desire for revenge and beats its swords into plowshares can we finally work for a mutually acceptable peaceful solution. America’s demands for freedom and non-interference in its internal affairs must be respected, or there will be no long-term peace. Al Qaeda must cease its aggression and quest for hemogenic control and negotiate in good faith.
Violence begets violence. It’s time for the war and the killing to stop. Al Qaeda, the opportunity to work for a lasting peace is at hand. Do it for the children.”
If I would just once hear the left use the same “logic” that they use to condemn our actions in the GWOT to condemn the actions of al-Qaeda, maybe then I wouldn’t have such a strong feeling that far too many of them actually do want us to fail in this GWOT. I don’t know if it is because they are “America Haters” or if they just have some bizarre guilt complex about America, but they and their attitudes seem pretty biased against us.
(For the above quote, all I did is take some of Talk Lefts own words, but replace U.S. with al-Qaeda. Add a few of my own left wing simulations and viola!)
And then we see this headline:
“Iraq’s al-Qaida names Zarqawi successor”
Ah, I see, it’s Iraq’s Al-Qaida now. The one that Bushitler created.
If it were true- that each death creates 100 new terrorists- ( and I’m not math expert, we’d better ask Greg), but it would seem that by now all of the citizens of Iraq would be terrorists.
But, really, I think we need some formula. The number of terrorists we’ve killed times 100. Then we can compare it to the population of Iraq and see if it’s time to nuke ‘em yet.
i think the question should be how did Kathy find Jeff? anyhoo, after resisting the urge to visit her blog last night, i caved just now. she kinda reminds me of my mother-in-law, she means well, but she has a tendency to mangle things in the retelling.
Bingo
In Kathy’s defense, no one—not even Elle McPherson—looks good on a webcam snap photo.
Besides, it’s her ideas that make her ugly to me.
Not Elle, Kathy.
Elle is quite hot.
In fact, she probably looks good on a webcam snap.
But really, she’s the exception to the rule.
I’d let Elle have my children. I wouldn’t let Kathy near them.
Since you’re something of a cinema buff, Jeff, and you brought up the lovely Elle, here’s a DVD tip: Sirens. She’s half or fully naked just about all the way through the film. A masterpiece.
I just want to make something clear all NY teachers do not look like or have Kathy’s goofy ideas.
Is this a serious question? I don’t come here often enough to be able to tell right off when you’re serious or just messing around. I’m guessing you’re making fun of the formula ( 1 dead = 100 new)and not the logic but I can’t realy tell.
After seeing her picture and reading her posts, I can only sadly conclude that she is the result of some genetic experiment gone horribly wrong.
Percy wins this round.
That would be the one in which Northeastern Barking Moonbats were allowed to mate.
Zero style points for physical appearance jokes as you might imagine. Stick with her lack of emotional maturity.
2x Style points for all the commenters that avoided such barbs.
Of course, Pmain scores with the Drew Carey show quip, but he just doesn’t net any STYLE points.
Come on guys, why resort to petty attacks on her looks when the things she says provide such a target rich environment for ridicule? Really why even bother to ridicule her at all? I got a little frustrated with her at times and got a little smart ass with her but it’s clear she’s not playing with a full deck. She isn’t interested in the facts, she has made up her mind that the entire Iraq deal is illegitimate and that anything we do there is illegitimate. Reality, reason and facts be damned.
Let her go back to her blog and trumpet her moral virtue for all to hear. She’s not like Actus or anything, I think she
(operative word that) strongly about this stuff and isn’t just taking a position to be contrarian.
On second thought, her eagerness to use our troops as pawns to demonstrate her moral superiority is pretty fucked up.
B*tch
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
So the Jihadis just multiply when you shoot them? I know! Let’s lure them into an ice rink, then crank up the cold – when they freeze, we bury them in the Antarctic!
Well, they don’t use that logic because they know it isn’t true. While 2 homophobic, red-state rethuglicans might rise up to replace the fallen soldier it’s hard to call them Americans (why, they don’t even know how to dissent like real patriots!). And really, once they run out of those troglodytes and the numerous poor black youths are- while not in a classical sense, but by vrtue of their poorness, blackness, and youthfulness- drafted and expended on a war for oil/Jooos/revenge/stolen elections…well, you can count on Kathy to not fight in any wars. Because wars are bad.
And she’s not about to watch Bambi either…she knows what happens!
OK. Now we have 700 new terrorists. What happens with the wounded one? Although still alive, not operational – so, does that just make 50? And what about the two that were captured – should be worth at least 10 apeice, eh?
Kathy needs to get the math right.
A future English teacher. SAT score and IQ probably correlate with the lowest quartile of college students. Easily led.
There is a reason for stereotypes.
Let’s not be too hard on Kathy—you might be prone to initiating gales of laughter by using the phrase “Rear Admiral” and “shove his head up his ass†in the same sentence if all you knew about admirals was gleaned from a vintage Paul McCartney and Wings song. Or if you were just a stoned New York public school teacher.
EFG:
Hmm. Actually, I think that without meaning to, there’s an embedded belief in the superiority of America (and her allies). To these people, the only way for humanity to move beyond war is for us all to be convinced of how horrible it is. I’ll grant this, as far as it goes.
Now: Note which side they try to reason with.
More to the point, I think/feel we ought to chastize Jeff for his vicious outing of Kathy, mentioning her by name on his blog in what can only be considered a vile, gob-smacking ad hominem manner designed to unleash his minions in a collectivist swarm to her unsuspecting blog to comment.
Think I’m kidding?
Here’s what Jeff wrote:
Here’s what Jeff meant:
To quote announcer Herbert Morrison: “Oh, the humanity!”
700? that’s nothing compared to the millions of old terrorists created by the Muslim Brotherhood.
She reminds me of Cindy Sheehan. With a better hairdo. And more teeth.
t/w really
No offense, Pablo, but I think Elle would have to want your children first. That’s usually how this sort of thing works.
TW: ”coming”. I ain’t going there.
– Kathy’s into her 23 minute, and fading fast. Luditial bromides have a half life of about 5 minutes.
– Military sources are speaking of over 150+ raids since ZZbottom got offed. Over 200 insurgents killed or jailed. Sounds like a regular Tennesee turkey shoot is in progress.
– How many more bitch slaps can the Left absorb in one month, before thier heads all explode?
The_Real_JeffS sez:
I think you meant to say that she would have to want to have my children first.
If she did, I’d let her.
If you extrapolated from that, by the year 2050 or so, one out of every two people on the Earth would be an professional Elvis impersonator.
Uh-huh-huh.
But what’s your point, Percy?
SB: become
the ball
TW: Point taken.
Darned AI software, always butting in……
A future New York school teacher who thinks Aristotle meant the same thing be “liberalism” that she does? Better would be that she knows he didn’t but thinks everyone else is dumb enough to believe he did.
Nit, because it’s all I’ve got: the AC-130 gunship is known as Spectre.
Here’s what Jeff meant:
Nah, he’s just pointing and laughing.
And I must note, he’s working his way down the education-blob food chain; having snacked on that Broome Community College dude, he now inhaling such krill as future NYC PS teachers.
Cordially…
You guys are just mean. Why can’t you stick to bad-mouthing terrorists?
What a drag if she chose artificial insemination.
Hey cynn,
Kathy and the Perfesser injected their nonsense
into these comments threads of their own free will.
They’ve consistently made false statements, alledged “facts” that were complete bullshit and sanctimoniuosly lectured the rest of us about how much brighter and better they are.
We’ll stop when they do…if you don’t like it, go back to Daily Kos or whatever worthless, unvisited blog Kathy writes.
“Hail al-Qaeda! Immortal al-Qaeda!
We shall never be destroyed!
Cut off a head, and ten thousand more will take its place!”
Quick! Send for Nick Fury, Agent of B.U.S.H.!
If it were not for Major John, the Good Lt, Verc, and a host of others, she’d be teaching Russian…
There are always going to be those who can’t or won’t pull their weight. Fine. Don’t have the decency to thank those who paid the bill? That’s OK too.
Just have the decency to shut up. Because the attitude was old in the 1960s. It’s way past its expiration date now.
TL actually said that? Sheesh.
On the other topic, I’ve met Elle McPherson – she toured the factory that made some calendars featuring her, at which I happened to be temping (10+ years ago). She was very pleasant and friendly, about 7 feet tall, and had thighs that led me to believe with absolute certainty that she could roundhouse my head clean off.
I seem to remember that she had a lot of freckles, too.
And the amount of image manipulation in those calendars was astounding.
Noah:
No, she didn’t actually say this. This is where I “Add[ed] a few of my own left wing simulations”
Sorry for any mix-up.
(you gotta admit, it sounded plausable for her to say, didn’t it?
Yeah, it sounds totally ridiculous, the idea of al-Qadea beating its swords into plowshares. Yet why do these peace-nic (sic?)people seem to insist that we do the same thing?
I understand that as a civilized people, we don’t necessarily live by and for the gun, yet it seems naive to want us to disarm, when there are truely evil people like al-Qaeda who really are working overtime at killing us.
Wow, so I actually may have helped create 200 new HIG one night in the Summer of 2004. Man, I am going to hate having that weigh on my conscience from now on…
In all of this badmouthing of this person named Kathy, one thing that I notice is missing is “Posted by Kathy”.
Now, I disagree with some of what Kathy Kattenburg says, and I also don’t think that she really needs to be defended from anything in this thread. Rather, a lot of the comments here border on the childish, and are neither here nor there in relation to the war on terrorism. Which may be why Kathy hasn’t responded.
In another thread someone posted another comment which is almost as unbecoming as anything said here, but which is also an implicit question to me that I can answer:
I think it has to bother a relatively intelligent guy like Greg Kuperberg when he looks at his fellow anti-war commenters and finds nuts like Kathy.
Well, I agree that Kathy is about as far to the left of my perspective as Jeff Goldstein is to the right of it. But even “absolute pacifists”, as Kathy was called, aren’t always wrong. In my view, a war is all well and good if the free world actually wins it. If a war is unwinnable, as the war in Iraq is, then Kathy is right in that situation: violence begets violence.
Objectively speaking, Iraqis have to live with a lot more violence now than they did two years ago. The US military is no longer a force for positive social change there; now it’s just another militia. One poster said that the insurgency is just a few pockets of resistance, but actually, the US also just has its own pockets of control. Most of Iraq is now divided into pockets and no-man’s lands. Bombing those seven guys in Baquba is just a load of hype in the face of a tangible loss of territory. The biggest “pockets” aren’t even controlled by the Sunni insurgency; they are the territory of much larger Shiite militias that the US rarely fights. The Sunnis are just the tip of the iceberg.
Other posters have downplayed the turmoil as similar to bad neighborhoods in Paris or wherever. The bad-neighborhoods theory does not explain why the US is still spending more than the entire GDP of Iraq to liberate Iraq.
After all, how many terrorists have they managed to rub out for $300 billion?
You know all these “the war is unwinnable” idiots seem to forget one thing – you can’t QUIT a war unilaterally. The AQ in Iraq fighters are going to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans. You really think they wont just move on to the next place they can find Americans if we pull out.
Oh, and I wonder, what did Osama bring up all the time in his old pre-9/11 recruiting videos; how many terrorists the US had killed, or how the US cut and ran in Somalia after losing only a few troops? Thats what I thought.
But Greg and Kathy are right, we create far more terrorists by fighting them then we do by running away, just ignore what the terrorists themselves say about it. The terrorists are notorious for ignoring reality’s “liberal bias,†right Greg? I’m sure the terrorists’ numbers just SWELL when they’re getting their asses kicked. No doubt their biggest fear is that we’ll decimate their ranks by giving them something they can call a victory.
… whuffled the troll.
If hypocrisy were kevlar: you’d be bulletproof. Ass.
You can’t QUIT a war unilaterally. The AQ in Iraq fighters are going to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans. You really think they won’t just move on to the next place they can find Americans if we pull out.
No, I don’t think any such thing. Iraq is destined to become a much bigger exporter or terrorism than it was before the war. That’s a good reason that the United States should not have invaded it.
The point is that only a small fraction of the Iraqis who hate Americans are “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. It is a waste for Americans to keep taking it in the chest from every last Iraqi faction just to fight Al Qaeda. I won’t say that it “creates” terrorists for the United States to be there; it’s not quite that simple. What is true is that the American occupation of Iraq invites chaos, and chaos is a haven for terrorists — even though the Americans bomb them. It also attracts attention to America from potential terrorists and insurgents who would otherwise pursue other business.
But it is not as simple as that killing a terrorist makes a hundred terrorists. What is true is that when Americans stand in the middle of widespread violence that they do not control, then Americans will be attacked more rather than less. Going home is the best of a bad set of options.
Well, I think it’s fair to say tht Iraq will ‘export’ more terrorism now than before the War, what’s important to consider are the types and kinds of terrorism being exported.
On the one hand, you had a State enabling large-scale terrorist acts
On the other, you have a bunch of pissed off guys with no state sponsorship taking potshots at US troops, who shoot back, and blowing up cars at mosques, along roadsides, and in markets. Occasionally blowing themselves up in the process.
So, given the choice, I’d take a much higher increase in low-level terrorist activities compared to a onesy-twosey incidence that involved catastrophic terrorist acts.
But that’s me.
.
I can imagine a departmental meeting at Greg’s alma mater:
GREG: Why can’t you accept simple fact, Madame Chairperson? Nationwide, basic knowledge of mathematics is on the decline! It’s a trend going back to the Eighties, and even the initiatives many state and federal entities have adopted aren’t making a dent! By the time they reach us, these students know even less about the fundamentals than their parents or grandparents did!
CHAIR: What do you suggest we do then, Greg?
GREG: We’re standing in the middle of an educational system where we have zero control and influence over what happens at the K-12 level. It’s only going to get worse. Closing the University is the best of a bad set of options.
CHAIR and GREG’S COLLEAGUES stare at GREG for an uncomfortably long time….
– Of all the feckless idiotic claims you’ve made Greg, that one is priceless, and a total crock. The Jihadist’s scumbags had one simple reason for going after America. We’re the lead dog. Take out the lead dog, and the rest of the candy-asses will fold like tissue paper. Unfortunately, like every fucked up despot before him, Bin Laden underestimated American resolve. Now he gets to cower in some dirt hidey hole, waiting for the enevitable, as he watches his chums like Zarqawi bite the big cahoona, one after another. Not exactly the Celphate glory I think he had in mind.
– At least try to not sound like a 12 year old in your posts. It’s really a bore.
How did that work out in Somalia?
Lebanon?
The 91 Gulf War?
Didn’t certain people who wish us great harm draw very damaging (for us) conclusions from that? And then act on those conclusions?
Moreover, your assumptions seem inconsistent.
If Al Qaeda is driving the remnants of the resistance in Iraq, we should stay until they are completely crushed. Accommodation with AQ is unthinkable, and their tactics have made them radioactive to Iraqis of any ethnic or religious persuasion – retreating from them will only encourage them to follow us when we “go home”.
If, on the other hand, the resistance is driven by Sunni/Saddamist revanchists, their interests are in re-establishing minority rule in Iraq. Their existential struggle is with the Shiites, not with us, and it is unlikely that they will have the means or the time to attack the US itself, unless they manage to retake control of the reins of power in Iraq. They will never have a prayer of doing that while we are supporting the democratic government, now with large numbers of troops on the ground, and later with material assistance after our forces have been reduced to token strength or withdrawn completely. The reason they attack us is to try to undercut our support for that government, because it is the only conceivable way they can ultimately prevail and attain their goals.
In either case, the only way Iraq leads to increased terrorism and decreased security is if we do what you advocate and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by running away now when the job of building a democratic Iraqi government that can sustain itself is almost finished.
For you Greg,
The top 10 other things that 300 Billion also helped with:
10) 3 Democratic based elections in Iraq & new Iraqi government
9) Removal of Saddam – who doesn’t get the 500 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium being held by the IAEA
8) Libya surrendering its WMDs
7) Liberation of Afghanistan
6) Turkey being admitted to the EU
5) Syria pulling out of Lebanon
4) Iran bordered by 2 Democracies, courtesy of the Great Satan
3) Tensions between India & Pakistan have been greatly reduced
2) Continued exposed UN corruption in programs like the Food for Oil
1) John Kerry’s Presidential career being torpedoed by his own lies, exaggerations & inept campaigning
And how, Greg, will Iraq be less chaotic (and thus, by you definitions, less of a haven for terrorists)after we leave? Dispite your fondest wishes, the non-Islamist Sunnis that currently attacking US and Iraqi troops are not doing primarily out of anger at the US presence; they are fighting because they fear a Shiite run government (for a variety of reasons, rational and irrational.) Do you dispute that the non-AQ folks currently fighting US troops do so in opposition to the current Iraqi government? If not, how can you make the claim that decreasing the protection of the Iraqi government by removing US troops will decrease the chaos?
Have you even bothered to think through the implications of anything you say? Or are you just so sure that what the US is doing must be wrong that all your ideas come from there?
And you know what, even if all the crazy, baseless claims you’ve made are true, you’re still wrong. For the sake of argument, I’ll grant all your assertions: American troops “taking it in the chest from every last Iraqi faction;†Iraq is a bigger haven for terrorists than before the war; and any other idiotic claim I may have missed. You’ll still need to explain how the current situation, even if it’s as FUBAR as you claim, is worse than giving AQ a “victory” far bigger than 9/11. (9/11 was an attack on unprepared civilians, while, if we leave Iraq, AQ will claim to have directly taken on the most powerful military in the world and won.)
Osama said it himself with the whole weak-horse vs. strong-horse thing, the terrorists are absolutely dependant on the appearance that they are winning in order to bring in recruits. Yet, you want to hand them a victory that they will use to make their success appear inevitable. If they can stop the full might of the US military in Iraq, they will claim, they can stop it anywhere. Muslims throughout the Middle East that oppose AQ would be silenced (either out of a sense of self-preservation, or by action from AQ and its supporters). Middle Eastern countries, even those currently assisting us in the GWOT, would acquiesce to threats from terrorist groups while laughing off pressure from the US as empty talk. And the thing you claim to be preventing would still come to pass, Iraq would be a haven for terrorists, only now, those terrorists would have greater freedom in the surrounding region, and a HUGE supply of recruits.
So, explain again how leaving is the best of America’s options.
(Sorry everyone if that went a little long)
The African embassy bombings, the Cole, and 9/11 were all the result of the US drawing attention to itself by occupying Iraq?
Australians were targeted in Bali because they helped in Iraq?
Stop talking out your ass, Greg.
I keep trying to tell you people, that isn’t going to work any longer.
Can we get a new troll, please? I’m bored with Greg, and the stuffing keeps falling out of his head.
I think they’re rolling up Zarq’s network now. You see this alot in police work – they start at the bottom, gathering intelligence and working their way to the big cheese. Now that the big cheese is dead, they’re closing down the AQ network. My opinion is somebody close to him sang like a canary.
I think Zarq’s death will have much greater positive consequences then the press will ever admit.
The latest photo evidence being touted by the left is that blood only pooled in one of Zarqawi’s ears because every US soldier on the scene lined up to piss in the other…
Destined? As in Destiny? I thought fatalism was the block and tackle of ancient Greek heroes and social conservatives.
To be fair, it may have simply been our destiny to invade.
Then who are the rest? The, to use a math term, “big fraction”? Because if it is, say, Sunni dissidents looking to reassert a Baathist-like control over the country and Shia militias looking for a little post-Saddam vengance…then I’m not seeing the destined export.
Perhaps, but I get the impression we are doing a little more than just trying to fight Al Queda. If we were just there to try and play whack-a-mole, though…
No, it’s destiny!
Chaos often, it claims, sends me invitations to things. I never get them. Chaos always says the post office probably lost the letter.
Me- I tend to think it’s because chaos is pretty bad at sending invitations, being an abstract concept and all. Foreign governments looking to play host to thugs, on the other hand, are much better with the inviting. They know how to use stamps.
But I do find the idea that American presence in Iraq invites chaos. It would appear to be a malady unique to that one location in the world- as US military and diplomatic presence in every other part of the world generates and ensures stability- whether we are talking about the three last seams of potential “Great War” (The Korean DMZ, the Pakistan-India border, and the Straits of Taiwan), disaster ravaged islands in the South Pacific, or once politically backwards nations such as Afganistan.
Of course, also, that view depends on whether one sees the rule of tyrrants as chaos or not.
As if there is some shifting of weight and contortion of body America could do to make itself invisible. A little secret- they know we are here!
But I’m forced to ask- what do you intend to mean by “other business”? Accounting? Opening a dog walking company in Kabul?
Nay, destiny.
I’m reminded of the mythical line supposedly said by Wyatt Earp to Ike Clanton as the OK Corral gunfight began: “get to fighting or get away!”
Americans are hardly standing. While certainly more restrained in their methods of self-defense than any army has been in history (which, to some commenters here, is much to our detriment), Americans are engaged in the various problems in Iraq- both in the form of interdicting those who make violence directly and working diplomatically to attack the “root causes” of the violence (carressing and massaging the more moderate of Sunni dissidents, promoting the more secular Shia over Al-Sadr).
Standing still, I might suggest, would look something like a plan that focused on doggedly chasing down one “evil-doer” and walling ourselves inside our own country with more and more security measures…hoping that the Islamicists will tire themselves out.
But, of course, are we destined to do so?
BumperSticker: On the one hand, you had a State enabling large-scale terrorist acts
Iraq never did that.
PMain (concerning other effects of the $300 billion on the war in Iraq): 7) Liberation of Afghanistan
No, that was separate money. The Bush Administration lumps together the cost of the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, but astute sources are careful to separate it out.
6) Turkey being admitted to the EU
First, Turkey hasn’t been admitted to the EU. Second, it has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. Whenever a government project is totally out of control, its defenders rush to attribute every piece of good news in the world to it. The same comment applies to most of the rest of your list.
Nick: And how, Greg, will Iraq be less chaotic (and thus, by you definitions, less of a haven for terrorists)after we leave?
The Shiites would eventually crush the Sunni insurgency using brutal methods. I don’t mean to sanction that kind of brutality, but these two sides are only getting meaner every day that the United States doesn’t leave.
You’ll still need to explain how the current situation, even if it’s as FUBAR as you claim, is worse than giving AQ a “victory†far bigger than 9/11. (9/11 was an attack on unprepared civilians, while, if we leave Iraq, AQ will claim to have directly taken on the most powerful military in the world and won.)
You are absolutely correct that if the United States leaves, it will be a tremendous loss of face for us. You are repeating a part of the administration’s message that has a lot of credibility: The moment that the US military steps out of the country, boom, the whole thing will collapse like a house of cards. There is a lot more truth in that than in the claim that the United States is winning the war in Iraq. Sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we would be wise to cut our losses.
Bush, understandably, does not want to lose a war. His Iraq policy basically amounts to defeat postponement. He’s kicking the can down the road. Perpetual defeat postponement is as bad for America as perpetual tax postponement. In both cases, the bills will eventually come due, with interest. Things that can’t last forever, don’t.
Some Guy in Chicago – magnificent, purely magnificent.
Greg – I’m sure on some planet your style is impressive, but your weak link is: this is Earth.
Iraq had a standing program that paid $25,000 each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Wrong again, Greg.
of course you don’t mean to sanction it, that smacks of almost taking resonsibility for the consequences of your choices! Rather, I assume you’ll simply chalk it up to destiny…and Bush’s failures as a leader.
But, I wonder, will Kathy allow such an act to be in her name? I’m sure the innocent women and children likely to be slaughtered in such brutality would like to thank her for her concern.
Why is it that liberals have no idea how capitalism works, but seem to think dead terrorists accrue interest?
Some Guy in Chicago: The interesting twist in our conversation here is that one of the main arguments for the war in Iraq was, “Why are we so obsessed stability? Isn’t justice more important?” But now that the war is on, we find ourselves in a shotgun marriage to stability after all. Stability is what Bush keeps promising. Stability is why we can’t leave. Bush et al keep saying that if we leave any time soon, then boom, the porcelain will all fall to the floor.
I’m convinced (by General Odom, see below) that we should stumble out of the shop before we bust any more porcelain ourselves, even though we can now see shelves falling down. As Murtha says, “we have done all we can”. And more. But even if you don’t accept that plan — Anthony Cordesman, who I also respect, isn’t quite convinced — then it’s still a reason that the United States should not have invaded in the first place.
Rusty: I have always been for capitalism, and never against. I am only a liberal relative to the Congressional yardstick. If Congress is your yardstick, then reality has a liberal bias. In any case, the war in Iraq is a complete opposite of capitalism; it’s big government galore.
Anyway, people here talk as if the retrograde nature of the war in Iraq  that it worsens the problems that it was supposed to solve  is just a theory that I am made up. Or that I borrowed it from some hippie protesters. But that’s not true. No one here should stop at, or even start with, my explanation of it. The best explanation that I have seen, and the one that convinced me, was written by General William Odom two years ago. Odom wrote with real foresight, and people here should respond to his words rather than mine.
This is so absolutely backwards that I’m amazed anyone educated could be this ignorant. You might want to take a look at this and this, Greg, before making that kind of asinine claim again.
Also, Greg, I should point out that I had to refer you to the Patterns of Global Terrorism report from 2002.
Because in 2003 we invaded and removed Saddam’s government so now, for the first time in decades, Iraq is no longer included on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
Oh dear! I suggest that when us pro-war types made the arguement that stability should not be the primary and overpowering weight in determining whether to go to war, we did not say stability is irrelivant. Were we looking for a “shotgun marriage” of stability, we could find many a strong-man to replace Saddam. We could have divided up the country- let the Shia and Sunni sub-states become full on clients of Iran and Saudi Arabia and leave the Kurds to their fate.
Such a line of “but you said…”, however, also ignores a point that has been made repeatedly by Christopher Hitchens (and I tried to allude to previously) that runs exactly counter to the “stability is not key” point: Iraq was by no means stable when we invaded. A combination of monstorous internal policing tactics and Coalition forces patroing their borders was holding Iraq together. Shia were just as resentful of the Sunni before we invaded, and the Kurds were just as eager to leave the whole mess behind. Corruption and divided loyalties were rampant before 2003. The Iraqi economy was hanging on by a thread and living conditions outside of Baghdad were miserable.
A General, you say?! Why, we here at PW have never had a victim of the fever swamp swing by to point out that a General disagreed with the war (and it’s not as if one such commentor famous for her appeals to higher authorities isn’t guest posting at QandO)! We had simply thought these arguements were generated from dadaist evicerations of Home and Garden magazine! It certainly isn’t possible that, as opposed to never hearing these arguements before, we have heard these arguements again and again and again and have rejected them for any number of reasons!
Oh. I’m sorry. I should forward that to General Odom. Do you have his e-mail address?
SeanH: This is so absolutely backwards that I’m amazed anyone educated could be this ignorant.
You didn’t parse the context of what I said. In hindsight, the context could be read as bait that I should not have taken.
“BumperSticker” was making a distinction between “large-scale” terrorism and small-scale terrorism. He agreed that Iraq is now exporting more terrorism than before — for example the papers reported that Zarqawi ran an Afghanistan-style terrorism training school — but he said that it’s only the small-scale stuff.
My real point is that the distinction is artificial in the case of Iraq. Iraq is exporting more terrorism of all kinds than it was before the war. The State Department reports that you cite seem truthful, but they report even more in that direction in the 2005 report. They just devote fewer words to terrorism exportation in 2005, because Iraq now has even bigger problems.
For example, they didn’t even mention that Zarqawi’s group bombed Jordan last year with Iraqi suicide bombers. That is a new development; I’ve heard that there never were any Iraqi suicide bombers before the invasion of Iraq.
Some Guy in Chicago: I suggest that when us pro-war types made the arguement that stability should not be the primary and overpowering weight in determining whether to go to war, we did not say stability is irrelivant.
I’d like to clarify one important point here: It would be shallow for me to blame “types” like you, or any types on any side, for what the government actually does. You are free to hold any opinion, an d I’m not going to throw the consequences in your lap unless you’re actually in charge.
My point is that the Bush Administration itself argued that it was tired of pursuing stability at the expense of justice. They said that stability would be the natural chapter two after Iraq was set to rights. They did warn that hard work lay ahead, but they didn’t mean that chapter two would be 20 times as hard as chapter one. Now there is no stability in Iraq at all, except maybe in secessionist Kurdistan. Now the pursuit of stability in Iraq is their ball and chain.
Hitchens can argue that Iraq wasn’t stable before, but what he really describes is seeds of instability. I agree, they were there. Now those grenade pips are popping all over that country.
There are 3 restive provinces out of 16, IIRC. There’s no “maybe” about stability in Kurdistan, and that is entirely due to Coalition intervention. The vast majority of Iraq is relatively quiet. Kurdistan is booming (figuratively), and they treat American visitors like kings.
Wrong again, and again, Greg. How many things must we correct for you before you’ll start checking your facts?