http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/22/news/intel.php

I apologize for not knowing how to create a hyperlink, but the above link is to an article about the CIA assessment of Iraq as of last year. Here's an excerpt:

"A new, classified assessment by the CIA says that Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it provides a new laboratory for militants to hone their skills in urban combat.
...The assessment, they said, argued that Iraq, since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the 1980s, as a magnet and a proving ground for extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries."

Here's another source: (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33038.pdf)
"In this view, which reportedly is shared by the Central Intelligence Agency in a recent assessment, the U.S. involvement in Iraq has strengthened rather than weakened groups connected to or influenced by Al Qaeda. The reputed CIA assessment says that Iraq is now playing a role similar to that of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation - a training ground for Islamic militants who might travel elsewhere after the Iraq conflict winds down." This was from a Congressional report, and note that Congress was still being run by Republicans at the time of this report.

Slogans like "stay the course" versus "cut-and-run" have a nice ring to them, but they are just slogans. The reality in Iraq has spiraled beyond our ability to fix it; even Kissinger says that is the case. It's time to cut our losses.

Trey asks some interesting questions. Two of them, to paraphrase, were do the cut-and-runners believe the terrorists will stop attacking us and is there another way to defeat Islamic terrorists than fighting them. The characterization of the consequences of leaving Iraq presupposes that it will be the only action taken and it that is indeed the case, then Trey is probably right. However, I would like to take a broader view and offer some suggestions.

Sun Tzu warned us to know the enemy. Many do not and phrases like “Islamic fascists” are not only silly, they avert thinking to ways to defeat fascists and away from ways to defeat Islamic jihadists. Many people also refer to Islam as if it were a monolithic force when in reality it is one of the most divided religions on earth. In fact, we are not at war with Islam per se and we are not at war with most Islamic countries. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that we consider that our main threats come from Arab Islamic jihadists and that a major part of the solution will be found by co-opting the Arab jihadists.

To this end, I would propose a major emphasis on solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem. This is surely a major cause of contention and in my opinion will eventually include recognition of Palestine in some form of two-state configuration. The administration has unequivocally backed Israel for the last six years regardless of what action Israel took. I support Israel but I believe that mistakes have been made which could have been avoided and chances for peace have gone unexploited. Most seriously, there have been no negotiations for six years in contrast to all previous administrations, Republican and Democratic.

Saudi Crown prince Abdullah floated an Arab peace plan that was modified and adopted at the Arab League summit conference in Beirut in March 2002. The plan adopted by the Arab countries said that, if implemented, the Arab countries would consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, enter into a peace agreement with Israel, provide security for all the states of the region and establish normal relations with Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League also stated that Hamas “must” negotiate with Israel and abide by the Beirut declarations of 2002. Was this plan perfect? No, not by a long shot; but it was certainly an interesting proposal which was subsequently ignored by the administration.

Along with opening serious negotiations concerning Palestine, I would also suggest that we talk to our enemies. Forget Iraq for the moment. There are six major powers in the Middle East: Israel, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Moslem Brotherhood. Because we do not “negotiate” with terrorists, the US does not talk to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Moslem Brotherhood. Condoleezza Rice was astonished that Hamas won the Palestinian election because the US has no dialog with them. I was in Palestine for ten days prior to the election and predicted the Hamas victory on the third day. You make peace with your enemies not your friends. This probably involves talking to them.

This post has gone on too long already so I’ll quit. However, working toward solving the Palestinian problem, engaging the Arab countries and entering into negotiations with the now banned groups in the Middle East will, in my opinion, be more productive than remaining forever in Iraq or cutting and running.

Jeff,

Not a bad dissertation, but again you avoided my original question. Yes, I do assume that withdrawing from Iraq won't include other actions that will mitigate the disaster. What could we possibly do to compensate for our leaving? Sign a treaty with the insurgents? Don't think so.

And you call for dialogue. Bush has indicated that they will be talking to Syria and Iran, but they are doing this now because I believe they are simply desperate to get out and are near giving up on their own objectives.

And I and many people know that it's not just "Islam" or "Muslims," but a sizeable minority who are, as you say, Arab Jihadists, although I think there are also many Indonesian, Pakistani, Indian, Phillipine, Chinese, Chechnyan, and Shiite jihadists as well. This is not a limited group of people and the non-jihadi Muslims are frighteningly silent about the atrocities committed in the name of their religion. (I know there are a few, like your pal the Agha Khan, but they are the exception, not the rule.)

But here's the problem, and why Bush hasn't sought peace with the Palestinians: many if not most of our Muslim interlocutors are untrustworthy, duplicitous, and bent on the destruction of Israel and only using the peace process to gain time, strength, and advantage.

Bush refused to negotiate with Arafat. Smart move. The man was a liar, a murderer, and so obviously self-serving and corrupt as to make me wonder why anyone could believe anything he said.

Now we have Hamas. I agree with Bush for refusing to talk with them. They're murderers as well, although not as duplicitous since they are more public about their desire to see Israel destroyed.

The whole problem here is not our unwillingness to talk. It's our unwillingness to be assertive and require our various counterparts to uphold certain basic principles. We were assertive enough to take on Iraq in the face of endless prevarication and duplicity from the UN and EU, but were cowed by the liberal media and politicians and unwilling to truly assert ourselves and make total the victory. Sure, Rumsfeld may have played a role in our failure, but I blame the hyper sensitive media and opposition who characterize our operation by Abu Ghraib and other isolated incidents instead of seeing them as unfortunate, non-indicative occurances in a larger campaign.

I am not a hawk or for bombing Mecca, but I am convinced that we invite more trouble by weakness and hesitation. Our efforts to mollify the likes of Muqtada al Sadr and the other gangsters and thugs in the region make us look weak. The terrorists know and think this and so have increased their attacks knowing we weren't man enough to really do anything about it. That's why the Iraqi government is in such bad straits now and why we are on the verge of losing.

We have a lack of will, fostered by a general Western attitude of shame in our culture and near complete unwillingness to use force to resolve certain issues.

We need to stand up to these Islamic terrorists and the governments who both enable and foster them with firmness, resoluteness, and action, if necessary. We must be willing to sacrifice our economic health in order to take on the Saudis, for example, and demand they either stop funding Wahhabist revolution or face a cut off of protection and oil purchases.

When Reagan walked away from Gorbachev at Rekjavik, people thought he was crazy, but his firmness scared the Russians into defeat. We need the same firmness now, and will not get it from Bush, or any Democrat. (I'm thinking Giuliani may be the only man for the job, eventhough he's pro-choice.)

Well Trey, you are right about many things. The post was so long I just quit writing. I agree that the Saudi’s are a major problem and would go so far as to say that whenever you hear of atrocities like beheadings if would be a safe bet to think “Wahhabi Sunnis.”

Some minor points of disagreement: The Indonesians in recent years have struggled to form a democratic society which I would hold as a model for Islamic countries. Sure they have radicals there but with 100 million people so would any other country. I could also argue about the Philippines. Also, I don’t see the general attitude of shame in our Western culture. To me, this is just a right-wing talking point in the “culture wars” but let’s move on to some major disagreements.

Even though it is true that Arafat and the current leaders of Hamas are terrorists and as you say murders, the same can be said of most Middle East leaders, especially the two leaders of countries we are on the verge of opening dialog with: Syria and Iran. Menachem Begin was the leader of Irgun. Didn’t stop us from dealing with him. Arafat changed and the PLO recognized Israel. I believe that Hamas, forced to actually shoulder the day to day responsibilities of governing would also be forced to modify their destructive stand against Israel given time. Muqtada al Sadr? I am surprised that anyone is surprised that he has turned out to be such a major force in Iraq. I must say that I knew it very early in the war just like his father before him. Assuming the US is out of Iraq and the Palestinian problem is solved what is al Sadr’s goal? World hegemony? I don’t believe so. I think he will become an uneasy ally of Iran in a strictly regional Shite/Sunni confrontation with Saudi Arabia, which would not be a bad thing for the US. Because of the Arab/Persian divide, I don’t think Iraq and Iran can ever fully reconcile, especially with (as it seems now) Iran on top.

You also say that the US is not assertive enough militarily. And yet, what has assertiveness gained us in the Middle East? Israel virtually destroyed southern Lebanon and yet Hezbollah is perceived to have won. More than that, they seriously weakened the nascent Lebanese government undermining the democratically elected officials. Iraq has been virtually destroyed and which country has gained the most from it. In my mind the answer is, without question: Iran. An enemy they could not beat, which acted as a counterbalance to them in the region, was overthrown by the US. Taking Iraq as it is today, how can we be more assertive? A massive campaign against Baghdad, killing thousands of civilians, would costs us how many American troops and foment how much ill will against the US? And for what? To prove how resolute we are? I don’t want to insinuate that this is your position since you haven’t explicitly said it was but I would strongly oppose it. I use Google Earth to look at the slums in Baghdad and I shudder to think that our guys might be asked to go in and secure it street by street.

Calls for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities are easier to make than actually do. There are 92 known sites and how many that we don’t know of? Many of the known sites are in hardened underground facilities.

Reagan at Reykjavík is not a good analogy because we are not at war with a country that we could actually destroy and thus cause its leaders to capitulate.

Again a too long post but let me end with a suggestion as to how we leave Iraq on a positive note. Have a country wide referendum asking the Iraqis if they want us to stay or go. If they say “stay” then let’s stay but if they say “go” which I believe an overwhelmingly huge majority would, then we say “the Iraqi people have spoken” through their “democratically expressed vote” and “we respect their wishes.” And we leave. Redeploy some troops to protect the Kurds, leave some in Kuwait, some in Qatar, some to continue training Iraqi security forces; but generally withdraw from combat. Under this scenario, I believe we could pull over 100,000 of our guys out over a couple of years.

PS: Shocked and awed at your possible support for Giuliani!

How can I prove to you that I'm not just some sort of automoton? You again accused me of automoton thinking by saying my point about Western shame is a right-wing talking point. Hogwash. I came to that conclusion myself long before reading it elsewhere. Perhaps you haven't been in the humanities department of a major university? It's dominated by scholars who make a career out of "deconstructing" the West and tearing it down stone by stone.

But I digress. Your suggestion about an Iraqi referendum on our presence sounds nice, but since they already held elections and since the current government has not asked us to leave, even though we've given them the opportunity, isn't that essentially the same thing?

And about force, you are generalizing. Things began getting out of hand when we showed, after the initial invasion, that we weren't willing to be tough on looters and the like. They gave way to "insurgents" and terrorists. If we would have taken a stronger stance and maintained it, we would have had to kill a few insurgents in return for establishing a firmer hold.

Now, the question is what do we do now that we've already shown we're vulnerable? Not sure. I don't pretend to have the particular strategic and tactical solution for every situation, but I do believe that a real solution needs to be based on a position of strength, not accomodation (which is synonymous with weakness).

Lebanon was another example of insufficient force due to worldwide pressure to "stop the violence." I don't feel all that sorry for the Lebanese because they had done precious little to contain Hezbollah. Well, I do feel sorry for some who felt like they couldn't do anything about Hezbollah. But what can I say: when you allow a private army, who was supposed to disband as a result of another ignored UN resolution, run amok, don't come crying when someone else does has to do your dirty work.

Bombing Iran: even if they have 92 sites, do you really think all 92 have the key technology necessary to make the bomb? I doubt it. Let's just bomb the ones that do.

Finally, dealing with terrorists: Begin may have been one, but how long had it been since he had engaged in terrorist activities? Also, Arafat may have told the West he was out of the terrorist business, but you have to be a naive fool to believe him. He was a liar and a coward who would tell gullible fools like Clinton one thing, and then tell Fatah to commence the killings and give speeches exhorting "To the Sea!" for the Israelis.

Perhaps Hamas will moderate, but until they do, they deserve our contempt. And I mean that: we must not be afraid to heap contempt upon groups like Hamas, Hezbolla, or countries like N.Korea, Iran, or Syria. They deserve it and regard our unwillingness to call a spade a spade a victory. But, of course, we all know what happens when you do that (Reagan and "Evil Empire," Bush and "Axis of Evil").

Speaking of Giuliani, he's a great example of my principle. He was willing to use force to solve the crime problem in NY even amidst constant criticism and charges of racism. He did what was necessary and essentially ignored the permanent grievance crown (re, Democrats) in pursuit of a larger good.

Now NY is safer for all and Giuliani is a hero to many.

But my point is that people like him are rare because there's such a machinery of anti-police, anti-military, anti-Western, anti-authority voices in politics and the media that it's nearly impossible to find a politician tough enough and bright enough to weather the storm and achieve real change.

Granted, I don't like his position on abortion and homosexuality, and those are important positions, but our primary need now is to have someone in office who knows how to protect Americans. That's government's no. 1 job, even though the Dems think it's to ensure no one has to suffer one moment.

YOu can say my position isn't "nuanced" enough or simplistic, but the true things in life rarely aren't.

AMDG you are attributing motives to me unfairly! I sincerely do not believe that you are an automaton. Just because I point out that your position coincides with right-wing claptrap does not mean that I do not think that you have sincerely come by the position through your own analysis. For instance, you wrote: “even though the Dems think it's to ensure no one has to suffer one moment.” Right-wing claptrap! However, I do not think you’re an automaton, I think you really believe it even though it is demonstrably not true because I am a Democrat and I have never even entertained that notion. However, my point is not that you paint all Democrats with a broad brush but rather that I am not equating your views with those of an automaton. I promise that in the future, if I think that your views are those of an automaton I will explicitly say so and I will also explicitly say why I think so. So on that issue: Peace!

Your statement that accommodation is synonymous with weakness is hogwash! Maybe you meant appeasement but I think you meant what you said and here is the reason you are wrong: If you are never willing to accommodate anyone else’s view then how can there ever be a negotiation over anything? A case in point is North Korea. The administration refused to negotiate because of precisely that point; the view that even talking to the Kim regime was a form of accommodating them. Are we even remotely safer now that he has nuclear weapons? No, but the administration has maintained its ideological purity. Well good for them. Clinton negotiated and came to an agreement which locked up the fuel rods under IAEA inspector’s supervision. Had the agreement been carried out, the fuel rods would have been removed from the country instead of being turned into atomic bombs. Kim violated part of the agreement by pursuing enriched uranium but the technical difficulties involved with that are exponentially more difficult than extracting plutonium from fuel rods. He wanted bilateral negotiations with the US and we refused because that would be an accommodation for him, therefore negotiations broke down or were never tried and now he has developed nuclear weapons. This was a huge strategic mistake by the administration.

Hamas had implemented a cease-fire for 18 months prior to the election and had said they were willing to extend it for an indefinite period up to twenty years. I would have taken them up on it and tried to work something out that was acceptable to Israel. There is precedent for that happening in the Middle East but we never tried because we didn’t want to accommodate them by negotiating with them. Who knows what they may have agreed too given the opportunity.

Let me state for your consideration what may be the core of our disagreement in this matter. I believe that through democratic elections, many of these groups, especially Hamas and maybe Hezbollah, can be turned from terrorism to an extent that is noticeable and makes the world safer by bringing them into government where their grievances can be aired and debated through some institutional structures. By taking the position that they cannot be accommodated they are forced to express grievances outside of governmental strictures which makes terrorism easier for them. In Palestine, millions of people voted for Hamas. If there is no acceptable means to accommodate them, what dose that imply for the future there?

Giuliani is "fortunate" the Trade Center attacks happened on his watch. In the months immediately preceding them, he was caught fooling around on his wife, exercised zero discretion when he took up with some woman in his office (one of those "secrets" everybody in NYC knew), moved the woman in with him and lived in sin while his kids had visitation with him (great example for the adolescent daughter, by the way), allowed croneyism to take a strong foothold in NYC government, etcera, etcetera, etcetera. And those are just the lapses in moral judgment. By all accounts, his political career was in the proverbial crapper and he couldn't even get elected dog catcher on 9/10/2001. The fact that he was on the scene didn't make him more moral . . . just fortunate (in a very twisted way). And as for his "clean up" of NYC, you do not know of that which you speak. All he really did was to move the seedy, adult businesses and drug dealers away from the tourist zone. Calling that heroism is equivalent to saying the bathroom is clean because you sprayed air freshener.

As a matter of professional competence, Giuliani is unqualified to be president. I could understand if he had been governor of an entire state but all he did was run a city. He didn't have to deal with different counties fighting him through the legislative process. All he had was 5 stupid boroughs with which to contend. He will bring zero experience in international relations (a mistake which we are already experiencing with the current administration) and zero experience in national politics (and, no, doing the press junket for his self-aggrandizing book doesn't count).

I think the American voters are smarter than that.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Giuliana could be a closet democrat. If you can vote for him, you can vote for most democrats: that's good! Homosexuality, adulterers, divorcees, and abortion aren't really all that bad, are they?
If you consider New York safe now I assume you mean Times Square. There are far more unsafe places in NY than in Atlanta that I wouldn't go. I think you mean fewer prostitutes and window washers, not safe.
There are more crooks in the stock exchange, world trade offices, and the UN, than in the rest of the USA. One half of the police force and firefighters are now unnecessarily on disability, and Trunp himself said crooked contractors in NY ran his prices up greatly. It is a wonderful place!

Jeff, I greatly respect your point of view, but I think that our continued high-visibility military presence in the middle east is just making things worse. I was there for Desert Storm and the war in Afghanistan, and both times, I was struck by the visceral hatred that the fundamentalists have for our presence in their homeland. Not just Al Queda, but the ordinary man in the street. That's where they keep getting an endless supply of new recruits for their terror cells. I think we would do well to lower the visibility of our military presence in that part of the world. Out of sight, out of mind.

I agree with renewed emphasis on diplomacy in regards to Iraq, Iran, and our allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but I'd really hate to see us get in the middle of the Arab-Israeli conflict. No amount of American diplomacy will solve that problem, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but it just sounds like another "tar baby" for us to get entangled in. However, we could certainly support peace initiatives like the ones that Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been discussing. I just think we need to play the role of facilitator rather than being the key player in developing and implementing any peace plan.

I must say that after reading your reply, Mr. Parker is most likely glad you offer Trey Hoffman your support. Let's see. Do I want to support Rush Limbaugh or a Lt. Col A-10 Hog driver? I pick Limbaugh, because he uses the right rhetoric.
There is nothing I can possibly add to Mr. Parker's writing, but I must ask YOU this:

Please tell me in the best detail you can muster HOW we will have to fight IRAQIs, who are 95% of the combatants in Iraq, here if we don't babysit their civil war. And tell me how soldiers in Iraq will prevent Al Qaida from coming here. Remember that we were'nt attacked here from 93 to 01. I would not use that 8 year stretch to say we were doing things right. Then give me your ideas on why we turned Afghanistan over to NATO. I'm sure you will bring us solutions that can be logically supported and debated.

Kevin Hack King

"And tell me how soldiers in Iraq will prevent Al Qaida from coming here."

Hack, would you at least acknowledge the fact that we haven't been attacked since we launched the war in Iraq?

I'm not sure exactly how our nut-brained adversary thinks about these issues, but I do know an important factoid when I see one.

I also know that Al Qaeda believes Iraq is THE chance to fight the Great Satan and defeat him. They know if they attack the US while we're in IRaq, it would probably increase our resolve to win in Iraq (at least among non-Democrats). Their ultimate goal is to humiliate and discredit the US so we can't stand in their way to achieving their goal to dominate the Mideast and Europe. They've at least realized since 9/11 that attacking us directly is maybe not the best way to do that since, unlike those Spanish wimps, we don't give up and withdraw when we are attacked. We take it to them. That's an important, if crude, psychological reality in this war, something I think most Democrats DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT ALL.

Your numerous questions about how we can actually do this or that in Iraq, or how the divisions there are impossible to overcome miss the larger point: we need to kick the terrorists' butts wherever we can to show them we are the biggest dog in this fight.

Unfortunately, because your pals in the Democratic party and the media jump all over our troops any time they commit the slightest infraction of precious etiquette, we cannot kick the butt we need to.

So, keep up the naysaying and calls for surrender in Iraq and see what happens to us and the world as we all, not just Spain and France, become so intimidated by Muslim violence or grievances that we allow them to implement Sharia in order to avoid "creating more terrorists."

As I already mentioned, the CIA says that our presence in Iraq is leading to higher rates of recruiting for Al Queda, and they are recruiting new terrorists faster than we are killing the ones already in Iraq. So our presence there is counter-productive to our own national interests. Iraq is in a meltdown, and no amount of "stay the course" will prevent that.

Your assertion that the Democrats and news media are responsible for this debacle is totally ludicrous. "Unfortunately, because your pals in the Democratic party and the media jump all over our troops any time they commit the slightest infraction of precious etiquette, we cannot kick the butt we need to." This negative outcome was predicted by Gen. Shinseki and others before the war was even started. But Bush and Rumsfeld were not listening. Thank God that Bush finally woke up and got rid of Rumsfeld. Now, we are in a period of damage control.

What we need to do here is "containment" like what we did in the cold war. These Moslem fanatics will kill each other off if we don't provide them an external target to unite against.

Trey, one last point: we HAVE been attacked since 2001. The Brits foiled a serious plot to attack the US with more airliners in August. Terrorists were in the "final stages" of a plot to simultaneously blow up as many as 10 jets leaving Britain for the U.S., sending the planes and thousands of passengers into the Atlantic Ocean, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said. The fact that this plot was foiled had NOTHING to do with our presence in Iraq.

Alan,

Let me first say that I admire your logical, reasonable, and sincere approach to this issue. I am therefore naturally inclined to tone down my own sarcasm and hyperbole because I sense that you are someone with whom I can actually discuss the issue.

Okay. Now, I never denied that we're creating more terrorists. I have no problem with "creating" more terrorists because if you choose to fight them anywhere, in anyway, you will do so, and I believe we must fight them. The only question is how.

My problem is that we're fighting them with one hand tied behind our back. The national media, the Democrats, the EUrocrats, the UN, etc. have done the tying. Well, that's only partially true. They're only symptoms of a general wussification which caused us to lose Vietname, Somalia, and now, perhaps, Iraq. We are unwilling to assert our values, principles, and--yes--our military dominance for fear of criticism. The West is no longer the strong, confident culture it once was and not only refuses to impose its culture on others, but bends over backwards to accomodate people who perpetrate honor killings, female circumcision, beheadings of hostages, and other various anti-social pathologies.

Final point: we haven't been attacked. The terrorists tried to attack us through Britain and failed, but no attacks on our soil. They know not to provoke the only country who will fight back, even if it is half-hearted. (Whereas they've already succeeded in defeating the Spanish and have high hopes of dissuading the English, which is why the attacks ALMOST took place there).

Honor to you, sir.

We both want the destruction of radical Islam as a political force. But I don't think that killing them all is practical or desirable. That's why I advocate a policy of re-deployment out of Iraq and containment. I think they (the various terrorist groups) will turn on each other, when they no longer have our presence in their homeland as a uniting issue for them. I'd like to see our troop presence in Afghanistan be increased, as we still have a good chance of turning that country into a real democracy, similar to Turkey. That may be overly optimistic, but it has a better chance at this point than Iraq. Overall, I think we need to reduce our military's visibility in the middle east for reasons I've already mentioned.

Meanwhile, the failure of terror plots against the US is not due to fear of provoking us, it is due to our diligence, and the Brits, at guarding against further attacks. It is probably also due to some human intelligence through the cooperation of Moslems who are friendly to the US. I'd like to keep the friendly ones friendly, if at all possible. The terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives in these attacks, so nothing we can do will scare them away. We just have to continue to guard against future attacks, and round up or kill the ones we can locate.

I totally agree with you about the West losing it's sense of self. Diversity is preached as a virtue, but too much diversity divides us, and we are becoming a nation divided. We were strong when we were the great melting pot, but now we are caught up in celebrating everybody's differences. Each ethnic minority celebrates their own culture at the expense of celebrating America. The Republicans and the Democrats throw spears at each other, and truth be damned!

Well you are right about standing up to terrorism forcefully. We just disagree as to the best approach.

..that I don't believe we should kill all the terrorists. That's not what I mean by taking a hard line. Rather, we need to show them we are the "biggest dog" around by being firm and not letting criticisms from the EU, the UN, or even other Muslim countries hinder our efforts. After all, I am quite confident that most moderate or current Muslim regimes would prefer the US take a firm stance against the terrorists because those same terrorists want to take out those regimes.

Of course, the big risk with doing that, and the whole point of terrorism, is that our efforts would further inflame the Muslim world against the US. This is only really a PR problem in that the complaints would be aired ad nauseum by our so-called independent press.

We would have to be willing to endure that criticism and make clear our intentions. Surgical, firm strikes against terrorists now, even if some civilian casualties occur, would prevent more death and destruction later. Our weakness always ushers in more violence in the long run, not less (think if we would have been more forceful with Hitler in Germany, Mao in Korea, Minh in Vietnam, etc.).

One component of this firmer line would be to militarily take out Iran's nuclear facilities. They are laughing at the West right now and are doing whatever they want. Having surrendered this issue to the UN and the EU was Bush's attempt to show the US could play nice, but it's backfiring.

Ahmadenijad has violated agreements and made enough threats to justify a surgical strike. It must be done and the momentum of that regime needs to be curtailed.

This one
"And tell me how soldiers in Iraq will prevent Al Qaida from coming here."

Last number I heard from someone who actually knows is that we have killed about 20,000 of those scumbags, many of whom went to Iraq to fight us there. That's 20,000 who won't be available to fight us here. Got that?

Why Bush and his people try so hard to keep that number a secret is beyond me. I'd drag their stinking bodies out in the street and show them on CNN every night during dinner. Well, CNN may be the wrong choice, but surely you get my point.

Robert, I certainly agree with your sentiment on killing members of Al Queda. The problem with your logic is that by our own CIA's assessment, our presence in Iraq is creating new recruits for Al Queda faster than we are killing them. This assessment was very recent, and the CIA has no reason to fudge the numbers on something like that.

Personally, I think our best course of action is to phase out our troop presence in Iraq and let the Shiites and Sunnis fight it out to the death. We can wait until the smoke clears (if it ever does) and make peace with whoever is left standing.

At this point, we don't have much choice. When the new Marine Corps commandant (Gen. Conway) says that the Marines are suffering an "unacceptable strain" due to the ongoing war, then it is time for us to listen. Marine generals tend not to be "whiners", so I think we need to make some corrections pretty darn quick, before we break the back of our military.