Redstate

But I never said that it was not worthy of a vote. What I did say is that Reid was foolish not to bring it to a vote and affect at least some Senate validation of a change in policy with the help of Republican defectors. Having refused to do so, Reid may very well have inadvertently served to re-unite the Republican caucus if only out of spite against him and his high-handedness.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

Pejman

On what basis do you disagree with the plan?

There is no doubt in anyone mind, not even the mind of Democrats I would think, that US forces can pacify large parts of the country at a price. There is perhaps some question as to how long that pacification can last in the face of resupply and support of an insurgent force by Iran and Syria, something the surge does not address.

The real question is the ability of the Iraqi government and for that matter the Iraqi people to move beyond their century old tradition of tribal warfare and actually form a working Democracy. If there is a failure in Iraq, it is political in nature and will be reflective of the realities of the middle east and tribalism.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

here.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

Pejman

Your objections were to the Baker-Hamilton plan in general. As I understand the Salazar/Alexander proposal, the only elements of the plan they are being proposed is the elements of plan which address the role of US forces. From direct combat operations role to logistical and training operations role with a small rapid reaction force.

The alternative to Salazar/Alexander is maintaining the status quo surge and perhaps extension of the surge beyond September in some hope of eventually reaching a tipping point for Iraqi government and armed force competency. You ether believe that goal is within reach within some reasonable time frame or not. I have no faith in the Iraqis reaching that goal without an extremely hard push. Salazar/Alexander represents a pretty good kick in the a** for an Iraqi government that is on the verge of taking the month of August off.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

From direct combat operations role to logistical and training operations role with a small rapid reaction force.

It is divided into two parts a logistical and training operations role which has been in place since 2003 and ending direct combat operations.

If you want to end direct combat operations you have to leave the country. Nothing else makes sense. The presence of Coaltion troops in Iraq creates targets for the terrorists. They won't stop attacking Coalition troops just because we want them to.

Withdrawal is, of course, a different question. And whether it is a good idea has to depend on your estimate of what would happen if Coalition troops withdrew. But the idea you can base a policy on "oh, we're still here, but we don't really want to fight any more" is mind-bogglingly crazy.

Does any one imagine, even for a moment, that the other side would play along?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

JamesP's commment at the end of this thread. You can listen to a pro-occupation poster explaining that we aren't in danger of open warfare from the terrorists. (If they were real militia, they wouldn't be terrorists.)

Frankly, if Al Qaeda members are stupid enough to try to hit our fortifications directly, I don't see how we lose that fight.

Again, that doesn't mean that a change in mission is good. But these cries of impending disaster don't seem to have much backing them up.

It has no bearing on my comment, but Jamesp's comment is interesting and well written. I would think Flyerhawk's comments much more relevant as a response to what I have written here.

And I agree with you that these cries of impending disaster don't seem to have much backing them up.

Are you sure you are responding to the right comment here?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You were trying to argue that a more limited mission in Iraq was not tactically feasible, because our troops would be targeted. The post I mentioned explained that our troops aren't in the habit of losing such direct encounters.

By "cries of impending disaster", I mean the usual arguments for continuing in Iraq. For all we hear about staying until winning, few are actually saying we can accomplish X by time Y anymore. Instead, we are regaled with dire predictions about what might happen if we limited the mission.

I don't find many of these predictions believable. But if you like them, here's one to consider: We lost the 2006 election in large part because the course we decided to stay on had little prospect of victory. If that continues until November 2008, we'll likely pull out in January 2009 under the new commander-in-chief. With a Democratic Congress, we may not even have that much time before leaving is forced upon us. Such a public defeat for America is unquestionably a Bad Thing. Isn't it worth limiting the mission to stop that? Or are you willing to gamble on getting our ideal Iraq in time?

who you're referring to but my point was that a draw down to 20,000 troops and putting them on an "island" in the middle of Iraq to train troops is stupid. Our troops are taking control and killing the bad guys. The ISG is obsolete and shouldn't even be considered. We have a change in strategy not just a surge in troop numbers and its working.

docj

While I agree with you that the noise from the Left and their allies in the MSM, the continued "Mushroom" treatment from past White House communications staff and the fine NOT! job they have done in the past of explaining the underlying Strategery is something you think is a lot better?

I'm as turned off by the junk I hear coming out of the White House as I am from the junk coming out of the MSM, Air America and the likes.

As this thread was sort of a call for an honest debate over the future course in Iraq, you have to admit that spin coming out of the White House at times strained credibility.

I used to listen to Tony Snow on Fox Radio before he ascended to the "Peacock Throne" of the White House press room, and he was often quite critical of the spin and outright bending of facts to suit the agenda of the WH. Heck, he even made a joke or two after being named Press Secretary about the pokes the President gave him during the start of his tenure.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

is that anything resembling honest debate cannot be had at this point because the well has been irreversibly poisoned. Are we to expect that those who have been screaming "Bush Lied" are going to now say "Heh, just kidding. Bye-gons!"? And if that's the default position for your average left-of-center opponent of the Bush policy toward Iraq (whatever that happens to be), how can there possibly be anything remotely approaching "honest debate"?

The time for "honest debate" ended sometime in the fall of 2003. Calls for it now are little more than the proverbial "shining metal object" we're supposed to be paying attention to instead of noticing the spectacular failure of our New-And-Improved-Congress™ to even be able to get out of its own way.

Just for the record, I offer no defense for the White House's craptacular "public relations" operation since, well, basically the departure of Karen Hughes from the WH. The utter failure of the WH, and this President, to get anything closely resembling a handle on the day to day, week to week homefront battle with Oprah Nation is an indefensible disgrace.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Yet try as I might to plumb the shallows of my mind I fail to discover anything other than leave or stay. If as Solomonic wise men say "timing is everything", we are left between the Scylla and Charybdis of this relentless taskmaster.

But as timing has been at the center of the debate, circumstance forces us to make a choice, which I notice is missing from your two posts.

If "stay" means a situation more favorable to us and whatever Iraqui's capable of sitting on the lid and offering some hope for, if not total peace, control and a measure of stability, and if "leave" means a precipitous withdrawal with the chaos, slaughter, defeat, shame, plus an unmistakable message to interested parties, then both matters and consequences become more distinct.

If this is a reasonable forecast of things to come then the dilemma disappears and we are only left with a painful but inevitable choice, or is it responsibility?

Harry Reid has made up his mind and you can guess by now that I'm against the "Okinawa Horizon" thing, what do you think?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

A third way was proposed by Senators Salazar/Alexander.

Don't withdraw, but change the mission to what the Baker commission recommended; training of Iraqi forces, with US forces out of a direct combat role. That's what Salazar/Alexander are calling for, and I think will end up the compromise position.

In September the President and Harry Reid will engage in a duet of "My Way or the Highway". President Bush's tune will be sung to the tune of "Just a little bit longer", Harry will be singing to the tune of "Runaway", or maybe "Hit me one more time", hard to say.

Maybe, just maybe there will be a new tune, sung by another "Gang of 8" band that brings some sense, less noise and an end to both sides talking past each other. Who knows, maybe the transition to an advisory role for US forces at reduced overall numbers of US forces on the ground will put some backbone into the Iraqi government.

On a purely political matter concerning the '08 presidential election, I do believe Alexander and Fred are close friends.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

Don't withdraw, but change the mission to what the Baker commission recommended; training of Iraqi forces, with US forces out of a direct combat role. That's what Salazar/Alexander are calling for, and I think will end up the compromise position.

And what do we do when the bad guys continue attacking us while we are in 'train the Iraqis mode'?

During Vietnam one of the favorite chants of the anti-war nutjobs was "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" (I guess this was based on the collection of lyrical inanities espoused by the Bettles in "Imagine"). I used to respond to this with "And suppose they give a war and only the other guy comes."

Just how do we get out of a "direct combat role" if the bad guys don't want us to? Frankly, I find it embarassing to realize that Salazar and Alexander are actually elected representatives of the people. Two guys who clearly have a collective IQ lower than the ambient air temperature.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

This thread purported to be about a "Responsible Debate On Iraq", yet you take the debate to gutter where it seems those who whole heartily support the President would take it. In some ways your views and comments are as asinine as the comments from the Left and will lead to neither a reason discussion nor a respectful dialog.

There is nothing reasonable nor intelligence in your denigration of the positions put forth by Senator Salazar or Alexander as an alternative to the Presidents course in Iraq. Feel free to disagree with their proposal, feel free to offer up substantive and realistic objections, but resorting to the level of discourse that seems to be your want only illustrates the lack of intellectual honesty of your position. Your rhetoric is as caustic as "Bushlied" and others from the Left.

As Ronny put it to a then Peanut Governor, Jimmy Carter in a 1980 debate in New Hampshire, "There you go again".

_______________________________
None of the Above !

Because he's right. The "plan" is consistent with any kind of reality I'm familiar with. It makes even less sense than "redeployment over the horizon." At least if we pull out completely, our guys will be out of the environment and not be getting targeted. If we were to implement this ridiculous "plan" our guys would still be attacked and they'd somehow have to fend off their attackers without getting involved in any actual combat. That's fine if you trust that the Iraqi forces are capable of dealing with any and all threats that arise, but if that were the case, why do we need to be there to train them? The "plan" is just a big meaningless set of paradoxes and wishful thinking.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

zuiko

Indeed the Salazar/Alexander plan my be a pipe dream, but so may trying to prop up an Iraqi government that will fail eventually no matter what we do in terms of "pacification".

The debate to this point is one of extremes. Ether the Democratic cut and run, re-deploy over the hill or what ever will appease the Code Pink sorts of Democrats, or blindly place our trust in the strategy that the President promotes and has been promoting in one form or the other for the last three years. I think we can and should expect more from both sides of the isle.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

I just don't see how any amount of Congressional meddling in strategy is ever going to make the effort a success. I also don't believe people on the outside are best qualified to make decisions about strategy. I'm certainly not going to armchair general, and neither should Congress.

If I didn't believe the administration was capable of pulling this off, I'd be all for the cut and run. I still believe they are making progress and success is attainable. So yea, it is pretty much either/or for me.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... I thought it was a perfectly reasonable question; Just how do you relinquish a "direct combat role" if the other guy doesn't want to let you? Turn the other cheek? Let them kill our troops without responding? Step up the training activity in retaliation?

Perhaps if you asked Salazar/Alexander to explain what we do in such a case instead of throwing rocks at me we might all be more enlightened.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

Your question was neither reasonable nor of a nature to achieve an honest dialog about the course ahead in Iraq. It was typical of the sort of talking past the other sides point of view that we are seeing coming from both the Democrats and the President of late.

While we are at it, Senators Salazar and Alexander put forth what they think is a reasonable compromise between two positions and they did so in good faith. They may be all wrong on all points or correct on all points contained in their plan. But to dismiss their plan out of hand with comments such as "I find it embarassing to realize that Salazar and Alexander are actually elected representatives of the people. Two guys who clearly have a collective IQ lower than the ambient air temperature." speaks volumes of the lack of respect some hold for those who you may disagree with.

That in a nut shell is in my opinion one of the root issues preventing having a "Reasonable Debate" on the issues confronting this country.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

are guys like Salazar/Alexander making proposals like this and no one challenging them to answer the "what if" that simply jumps out of the page. And I see no reason why I should respect people who would toss out nonsense like this and expect that because they are Senators they don't have to think through the results of the proposal.

Just what do Salazar and Alexander propose to do if Al Queda decides not to let us relinquish a "direct combat role." If someone is going to propose putting (leaving) troops in theatre then they have a responsibility to describe the options available and the possible outcomes of the proposal. It isn't any different than Biden and his harping on partitioning Iraq --- what if they, the Iraqis don't want that? But Biden gets to toss that on the table and walk away without even being asked the question, much less having to answer it. Same with Salazar/Alexander.

Once upon a time I had great respect for the Congress of these United States. Their performance over the past decade has left much to be desired, and this is a perfect example of why.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

Those are reasonable questions and worthy of being asked and answered when evaluating alternatives to the President's current plan. Asking questions, discussing and honestly evaluating the alternatives has been missing. It would seem that it's ether the Democratic approach or blindly follow the President.

I'm not happy with ether the tone or the substance of the dialog in Washington right now.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

"And suppose they give a war and only the other guy comes."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

... it only takes one to make a war.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

"Nobody" and "precipitous pullout." As it stands, your statement is either flat-out false, or else very sloppily written.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'll leave precipitous to Merriam-Webster. As for "nobody," I'm referring to people with actual clout. Kucinich may want us to start loading up helicopters tomorrow but everyone knows it's not going to happen.

"Precipitous" has obviously been picked up by Congressional Republicans as the buzzword of choice for misrepresenting the nature of the Iraq debate. It would be interesting to see how many times the word was used in the Senate sleepover.

It's easy to pick up these little catch phrases and run with them but in the end it's irresponsible. Unless you're a propogandist.

Now we need you to define what you mean by "everyone."

Thanks for clarifying that you actually meant "Nobody below the power level of a five-term sitting Congressman is actually advocating the Iraq policy described by unnamed Congressional Republicans," by the way. Very helpful.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You may not realize this, but a lot of people think we should stay in Iraq for years. By their standards, the timetable proposed by Reid is precipitous.

Heck, I'm one of the more anti-occupation posters here, and even I think it's precipitous. Full pullout by April, wasn't it? Yikes. I don't see how this advances our interests in the Middle East - especially giving our enemies a timeline to bank on.

Just because you aren't calling for helicopters to be loaded up tomorrow, doesn't mean a pullout plan isn't "precipitous." When the call is for American troops to leave before a stable Iraq is in place, when the call is for American troops to leave a vacuum to be filled by the likes of al Qaeda, that call for withdrawal is a precipitous one.

I trust I made that clear. I also trust that it is clear that I don't like other people implying that I am a liar or a "propagandist." Don't do it again. It is one thing to disagree with my arguments. It is another thing altogether to unjustifiably question my honesty.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

This may shock you, but I'm not beholden to your demands. You didn't personally decide that precipitous was the best adjective, talk show appearances did. Floor speeches did. Press gaggles did. It was chosen specifically so people could, in "good faith," misrepresent the situation as a scrambling piss-sodden retreat. So I'll do what I like, but thanks.

That sounded nothing like an apology to Pejman for implying that he's a propagandist. Correct that error. Now.

Moe

PS: And after you do, follow it up by losing the attitude.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Pejman was free to take away from my comment that his use of the phrase was irresponsible rather than propogandistic. He requested no apology and I am not here to supply them, nor to do anything else on demand.

I was deliberate and precise in the use of my comments and made it clear, in addition, that I resented being called a propagandist. Which you clearly accused me of being in your earlier comment.

It is bad enough that you don't tell the truth and have a flimsy grasp of the facts. It is even worse that you don't seem to remember what you said in previous comments.

I don't occupy myself with banning people. But others take the time to enforce the rules concerning polite and honest discourse. You clearly show yourself incapable of following those rules. And yes, as the ones running this site, we have the right to make "demands" stating that those rules will be followed. If you are invited not to come back, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But I'm not going to sit still while you call me a liar and a propagandist--especially when it is clear that those accusations are so much projection. Also, don't tell me what I did or didn't decide. I'll also do what I like and unlike you, I took the time to define my terms instead of dishonestly mischaracterizing what others write.

I'd listen to Moe if I were you. He has a good BS detector. And you are setting it off with your deliberate distortions of the truth. Not to mention your blatant and unbending ignorance.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

You compound your ignorance and dishonesty with an overly inflated view of yourself. Rest assured that reasonable people don't share your high opinion of your skills, talents and ability to bring interesting thoughts to the table. At best, you are a mediocrity when it comes to discussion of these matters.

At best. In fact, you may be something far less impressive still. And yes, I choose my words carefully when I write that. Your inability to read my comments carefully and/or your propensity to deliberately distort them justifies any contempt that I feel.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

The Presidential debate will be," what strategy will get us out Iraq with honor (sound familiar?).

Simple: defeat the enemy.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

This is too vague and open-ended for the impatient American voter and taxpayer. Anyone who has studied the U.S. political climate during our discretionary-type wars throughout history, realizes that either we win in a timely way, or the American public gets impatient and demands a new strategy.

When the Islamic Republic of Iran collapses, and the Iranians take their country back from the Islamists then we have defeated the enemy.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

in Iran, not Iraq, right? This is an argument for withdrawal from active pacification of Iraq as soon as convenient. Which is pretty much what the Reed-Salazar plan has in mind.

Frankly, if we're talking about the war on terror, I don't think toppling Iran is going to finish things either. But while actively targeting Al Qaeda in Iraq is a good short-term tactic, I don't see it as a good long-term tactic. Terrorists move around; that's one of the advantages of nontraditional warfare.

I think Iran is causing a lot of trouble right now for Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. I did not post that I think the US should invade Iran. Quite the contrary, a US invasion might actually strengthen instead of weaken some support for the Islamists in Iran. I posted that I think the Iranian people should revolt against their leaders, and take their country back. I did not say that if the regime in Iran is toppled then the war on terror is finished. I did say that Iran toppling is a good sign for the Iraqis to secure their country.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

I wonder how many of those brave soldiers, who are risking their life to protect us, feel about people who think this is all a discretionary-type war?

The U.S. armed forces have been fighting these types of wars for a couple of centuries. What is new or unique about Iraq? What do you think happened in Korea and Vietnam?

The troops are risking their lives to protect us, because they took an oath to obey the orders of the commander-in-chief, et. al. Whether or not, they agree with the war, the strategy, or public opinion is meaningless.

in Korea and Vietnam?" I think that Americans fought and died for their country.

FROM: http://www.historyguy.com/american_war_casualties.html

Korean War
1950-1953
Combat: 33,651

Other:

**(in-theater): 2,830

(not-in-theater): 17,730

Total: 54,246***
103,284

Vietnam War

1964-1975
Combat: 47,369

Other: 10,799

Total: 58,168****

I don't think there is any difference dying for America in the streets of some town in Iraq, or some town in Korea, or Vietnam or in the streets of St.Louis Missouri; except that in any other country, Americans are dying there to prevent having to see Americans dying in the streets of America.

The real question to me is are Americans dying in these wars because of what Americans who do not believe in America are doing to aid the enemy. I think they are, and I think there is a remedy in the US Constitution to stop such aid and comfort.
We need to use that remedy.

I resent the implication in your statement that "The troops are risking their lives to protect us, because they took an oath to obey the orders of the commander-in-chief, et. al."
I believe it is the citizens of America, led by the elected President, that sends Americans to war.

It used to be that every American student began the day with a pledge:
" The Pledge of Allegiance
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

That pledge serves as the basis for my military career and all of my adult life. That pledge is what I believe most military try to honour. I don't believe most leftists believe in that pledge or any other oath that Americans may make.

From an earlier post you spoke of discretionary type wars. That
term angered me all night, until I realized that all wars are
discretionary. George Washington and the others who gave birth to this great nation could have just done nothing. In WWII, Americans could have just surrendered instead of fighting the war.

That seems to be the theme of the day for leftists now.
Don't fight, just surrender, there is nothing worth fighting for in America. The Commander-in-Chief doesn't mean anything, we should follow the latest Pied Piper of the left.

...Guarantees a Dem victory in '08 anyway.

Time to face the facts, kids: There is NO middle ground on this. It's either stay for 20 years, or pull out in 6 months.

Anyone who thinks there's a "Third Way" on this one is kidding themselves.

Why is it necessary to destroy Iraq or to turn America over to the Democrats. What ever happened to believing in America? When did defeat become acceptable to Americans?

Hooray!

I can easily predict that we are not going to stay in Iraq as long as Korea, Japan, and Germany.
You aren't going to convince the American public that this is WW2, or the Cold War.

By any reasonable standard, we've won. Hussein is dead. His entire regime is gone. We've further prevented Al Qaeda from taking control in the aftermath, and their future in the region is bleak. Even if there is civil war, the outnumbered Sunnis aren't coming out on top.

America isn't giving up out of disgust alone. The bigger problem is that we don't seem to have a dog in this fight. This makes the difference between what we were willing to suffer for WWII, and we were willing to suffer for Somalia.

I agree we shouldn't leave entirely, but what exactly is wrong with the Salazar/Alexander plan in the long term? I don't buy that it's the end of Iraq. (It may be the end of the current government. Good riddance.) I don't buy that it strengthens terrorism; WE did that by not pounding on Iran when it sponsored it against us, for fear of destabilizing Iraq.

The only justification for the surge I buy is that the military says it kills terrorists more effectively that way. I can get behind that. America can get behind that. When did the war on terror become the war to make Iraq a democratic beacon?

President Bush extending the surge beyond say Spring of next year without clear political progress in Iraq and the beginning of US troop draw down will insure election of a Democratic President.

The President made this past Novembers election about his course of conduct of the war in Iraq with disastrous results. Turning the '08 Presidential election into a second referendum based on another round of "Stay the Course" will be an even bigger disaster.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

The political party that engineers a US defeat in Iraq before Iran's nuclear program is destroyed or dismantled will rightfully relinquish any semblance of political power and can expect to be relegated to minority status for at least a generation.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

... I won't bet on it going this way. I have great fear that far, far too many Americans are not all that concerned with the national interest. I have fears that the "progressives" may have already won the battle for the soul of America.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I've often said I think Americans are (to put it in a kinder, gentler way) not too bright. However, in this case I'll modify it and say "Americans are not aware of the world around them." Their lack of concern for national interest revolves around what's right in front of their faces. They do not have an appreciation for the long-term impact from politics and world affairs.

Today the MSM owns the American publick. They have brainwashed the citizenry into believing that the Left's head-in-the-ground vision that denies the impact of terrorists in the Middle East is the appropriate one (actually, for the most part the populace probably doesn't even CARE about this, and won't, until Al Qaeda detonates a suitcase nuke in downtown Chicago). The collective memory of Americans does not extend back to 2002, when the US military evicted Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and started us back on the road to national security. The MSM condemns us to additional terrorist threats by not publicizing the fact that a destabilized, US-free Iraq simply hands the Islamic terrorists another beachhead from which to launch their activities. The daft politicians who are promoting our "redeployment" to Afghanistan are in the same denial mode as the press.

The lack of concern for national interest that you mention is a matter of institutionalized selfishness and politically-motivated censorship by the mainstream media.

my response to John's comment. It's applicable to your comment as well.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I'm inclined to agree with you John. The "progressives" are winning their propaganda war on the American people. In the comment below, bs said it fairly well-- "Americans are not aware of the world around them."

In this particular case, I've deviated from my standard national security position, and I've chosen to base my prediction on something every American can understand: "Their pocketbooks."

Given: Oil fuels the engine that drives the world's economy.

What are the chances of stopping Iran from joining the nuclear community following a precipitous withdrawl "redeployment" of US troops from Iraq?

What will happen to the US economy, and consequently the world's economy, if a nuclear Iran holds hostage approximately one-third of the world's known oil reserves to nuclear blackmail?

A glimpse at our "not-too-distant" future?

The National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency
Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.

• The dependence of the U.S. and the global economy on oil is growing, which can have dire consequences for the economic wellbeing of the United States, our national security, and the American way of life.

• Securing the stability of our oil supply to the best extent possible in cooperation with traditional U.S. allies, while bringing on board the emerging major oil consumers, such as India and China, should be the key diplomatic strategy for the intermediate term.

• At the same time, the U.S. needs to deter those, from Tehran to Caracas, who are seeking to harm and destabilize the world energy supply chain.

I stand by my original prediction.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I closed bs's quote with an "a" instead of "em"

MY BAD!

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

in negotiating with Iran seeing that they have been holding his gal hostage since January?

ally to overthrow a free moderate government that is their enemy just as much as we are. We cannot allow the jihadists to control nation-states.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

How would 10,000 to 20,000 troops be able to function (train Iraqi troops) in the the hornets nest left behind after a withdrawal? I believe that part of the plan is totally flawed, making the rest of the withdrawal plan useless.

We went over there to kill bad guys. Let the bad guy killing proceed.

btw, What does Iran have to do to justify military action by us against them in Iran? They are killing Americans in Iraq, directly via their own Quds and other forces. So I won't go into the indirect ways they wage war against us. Given the discussion elsewhere, it appears that they can attack us in Iraq with impunity in some minds. What say you?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

...mortars and rockets. That is just the start of the list of reasons why it is a bad idea.

If you ever learn anything about military tactics, you need to learn the absolute weakness of static defensive positions. Remember The Maginot Line, how well did that static defense work? You also need to read the history of Dien Bien Phu. The French had some of the greatest defensive positions conceived in that one too. You ought to look up how well that worked out as well. Dien Bien Phu is what we would be replicating in Iraq with this idea.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

The examples cited are not representations of the situation in Iraq in any manner, shape or form. They are examples of the inherent weaknesses in static defenses.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Come on admit it, this is a joke right? This is something I'd expect from the princes and princeses of the US Congress but not from someone who has spent as much time at RedState as you have. Surely in all this time some kind of sense has rubbed off; among others streiff lectures almost every day, all you have to do is audit the course.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I am dead serious. And honestly I think that you guys really don't have that much of a clue about how to build effective defensive perimeters.

Wubbie speaks of mortars and rockets as if they would be a major risk. That simply isn't the case. We are speaking about choosing a specific location EXPLICITLY because it easy to defend. We would not be burdened with defending based on geographical boundaries. We would not be burdened achieving objectives. We would not be facing an enemy that could even approximate our abilities.

The Maginot Line is the argument? The Maginot Line was extremely powerful. The problem was that it was a fixed fortification designed to defend a border much larger than the line itself was. The Maginot Line wasn't flawed because it was overrun. It was flawed because it could be outflanked.

Why don't you talk to D-Day veterans about fixed fortifications and see what they have to say about. We had overwhelming firepower that could be brought to bear and yet they were STILL able to provide a staunch defense because of their fixed fortifications.

If we choose to create training camps and remain inside the camps the insurgents and AQ would be unable to do anything to stop us. We could construct a perimeter that is wide enough to effectively eliminate mortar and rocket attacks. Could they fire them? Sure. Would they be crushed in doing so? Yes.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Assume for the moment that you are right about fixed defenses (which you are not), the troops in your toasty little enclaves still need food, fuel and ammunition. That means supply convoys, convoys mean exposure, exposure means attacks.

As to D-Day, you will note that the attacking force (that's us, the good guys) did in fact overcome the Atlantic Wall by the end of the same day. You will also note that almost all of the "Hollywood" dramatized D-Day action is about Omaha Beach. The British/Commonwealth beaches, Juno, Sword and Gold, and the other US beach, Utah, all as heavily defended as Omaha and certainly far from painless also went far, far better than Omaha. For some reason(s), still being debated, Omaha was a near-thing.

We do not have a defensive military force. Our entire military is structured around taking the combat to the enemy, seeking them out and destroying them.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

we overcame those fixed fortifications the night before the invasion by dropping hundreds of paratroopers behind that "impenetrable" shield.

This is the basic problem with fixed fortifications - they are fixed, and therefore succeptable to end-arounds and other strategies to avoid them. Thus the Maginot Line comparisons...

The defensive positions in Normady were highly effective for what they were supposed to do. Of course they couldn't stop an overwhelmingly superior force. But they did stall the invasion consierably.

If the requirement to defend cities and strategic positions is removed, the US could very easily hold defensive positions in Iraq with little risk.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But they did stall the invasion consierably.

Yep, a whole 18 hours.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

The Allies had about a 7 to 1 numerical advantage with complete air superiority and artillery support. Even still the Germans could have pushed back the Allies with some better preparation and coordination.

John you are simply wrong on this point. From a purely tactical consideration defensive positions are far superior which is why attacking forces have always needed considerably superior forces. Strategically fortifications are a dubious option since they can never move.

But in this context there is no strategic value.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Look I can't help you understand basic military logistics.

If we were to determine that we wanted to build fortified locations we would not need convoys of any kind. We would have protected airfields inside of our defensive perimeter. This isn't some sort of radical notion and it would be nice if some of the military professionals on RS would make a comment.

We've done this before. And we've done in environments where we faced far greater forces.

Think about what we're talking about here. Building a training site, or multiple training sites, in which we get to pick the site and build whatever defensive measures we would like.

People seem to take Von Clausewitz's comment out of context. Yes fixed fortifications are generally not a good idea. However I can list several examples of fixed fortifications being crucial to overall victory. But they are not a good idea because they are fixed and wars are fluid. That simply isn't the case here. We are vastly more powerful than the enemy and by being inside of defensive positions we would eliminate their only advantage.

Build a 300 Km/2 perimeter with several miles of buffer zone with heavy perimeter scouting by UAV, Heli, and various radar systems and US military base in Iraq would be virtually invulernable to attack by the forces we face in the region.

And before someone tries to sidestep the conversation, I have already said that I don't know if this is the right course of action. I am simply pointing out that building hardened defensive positions inside of Iraq is most certainly a doable option.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Look I can't help you understand basic military logistics.

Clearly you can't.

Can we do it? Sure, we can do anything we set our minds to. We could also win this damn thing if the oh-so-enlightened-ones in Congress and the press would stop helping the bad guys and actually join America.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I'm glad to see that you now agree that we can do it and, from a military perspective, it would be VASTLY easier than our objective.

But to compare doing that to winning this "war" is absurd. It isn't Congresscritters that are blowing up Iraqis. And it isn't the media.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I'm glad to see that you now agree that we can do it and, from a military perspective, it would be VASTLY easier than our objective.

Oh yes sir, your superior argument has finally convinced me --- oops, sorry just kidding.

It isn't Congresscritters that are blowing up Iraqis. And it isn't the media

They most certainly are; they are killing Iraqis just as surely as if they were pulling the trigger. Their whinging and whining and defeatism is aiding the enemy as much as, perhaps more than, if they were delivery arms and ammunition.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

They most certainly are; they are killing Iraqis just as surely as if they were pulling the trigger. Their whinging and whining and defeatism is aiding the enemy as much as, perhaps more than, if they were delivery arms and ammunition.

It isn't the terrorists who are at fault. They can't help themselves. It's the Democrats in Congress who are at fault for the roadside bombings.

That is just surreal thinking. The fact that you think these people really care that much about our domestic political battles is amusing. They don't.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I guess the point to debate is that people have different views of what is real and conversely what is surreal. But if what is being debated in the U S is our military policy in Iraq, where for emphasis the terrorists are engaging that military, I would humbly suggest that they have at a minimum some passing interest.

Is it possible that you are being over assertive, how can you be sure "they don't", do you know something we don't and how did you come by this knowledge? They are after all, directly involved, which is a fair reason to pay attention.

Are you still amused?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Certainly some of the insurgents/terrorists are mindful of American domestic politics. But if the Democrats and the MSM were to get fully behind the President do you think they would just give up? It isn't realistic.

You can argue that the Democrats and the MSM's unwillingness to support the President has damaged the war effort domestically which has, to some degree, hampered our ability to carry out the fight in Iraq but to suggest that they are equally complicit with the terrorists/insurgents is just plain silly.

I believe, however, that it seems unlikely that the terrorists/insurgents really understand our domestic politics. We sure don't understand theirs very well.

I am not looking to excuse the actions of the Democrats or MSM. However I will defend them against charges of aiding the enemy.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

lining up behind the President will cause terrorists the world over to toss their hands up in despair, please, no straw man arguments. However the beginning of your second para is closer to the truth, less the part about complicity which implies a working alliance or partnership.

In reference to the your use of "degree" ;"they fail to see what an advantage it is to the attacker when you begin to give him ground and to retire, and how much it encourages him to pursue his advantage". Michel de Montaigne
Or as Napoleon said," the moral is to war as three is to one".

Intentionally or otherwise the degree of harm on our part is considerable, the degree to which this has inspired the terrorists can only be guessed at, but it's real and dangerous.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

there are those who DO think there is a working alliance or partnership or at least they let their rhetoric convey that message. Giving aid and comfort implicitly suggests a working alliance or partnership.

It can be also argued that the Administration is equally at fault for not being completely upfront in the beginning and not properly getting the American people behind him. Our system of government is inherently adversarial and I believe that the opposition party would be remiss if they did not properly challenge the Administration when it is clear that the American people are dissatisfied with the situation.

Now of course this argument naturally leads to a chicken or egg debate how the American people became dissatisfied with the war to begin with but that is a debate with no conclusion.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

is that the policies with which they disagree would make the country less safe. This is, presumably, why they disagree with them. This is very plainly true of, for example, Congressman Murtha, who has said over and over that he believes the President's policies have made the country less safe. Just as an official at the Pentagon recently said that he thought the ideas advocated by Senator Clinton would make the country less safe.

The key difference is that the President did not go whining about people impugning his patriotism. That particular complaint is made, almost exclusively, by one side in this debate.

You seem to be going down the same path when you say Giving aid and comfort implicitly suggests a working alliance or partnership. I do not think that is the implication at all. The implication is no different from Murtha's when he accuses the President of being a recuiting sergeant for al Qaeda. In both cases people mean that their opponents are advocating/pursuing misguided policies which (would) have the effect of aiding the enemy.

No-one outside the wildest excesses of some blogs is suggesting that senior US politicians intend to aid the enemy. There is sometimes - again only in blogging, as far as I know - a suggestion that people are blinded to the effect of their policies by partisan advantage.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It isn't the terrorists who are at fault. They can't help themselves. It's the Democrats in Congress who are at fault for the roadside bombings.

Another bit of your standard intellectual dishonesty. Nowhere did I say that the terrorists were not at fault or that the Democrats in (and out) of Congress were setting off roadside bombs. I said that the Congress, and especially the Democrats, were aiding and abetting the terrorists by giving them hope that by keeping up the pressure (roadside bombs) the US would fold.

That is just surreal thinking. The fact that you think these people really care that much about our domestic political battles is amusing. They don't.

They don't care about Democrats and Republicans, about Social Security or farm subsidies. And they don't "care" about our hissy-fit throwing pols. But they sure as H*ll care whether we stay or leave Iraq, whether we confront them or capitulate. Part of the reason we are facing off against these maniacs is that they pay attention to what we say and do --- for God's sake even bin Laden says so. They learned from our behavior in Vietnam, Mogadishu, et al[ and what the learned is that with enough pressure the politicians, and especially the American left (who believe in nothing but their own self interest), will fold like a cheap suit.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

Dien Bien Phu had a protected airfield inside the parameter of the base too. You should look up how well that worked.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Dien Bien Phu? You think that the insurgents and AQ are in any way comparable to the Viet Minh? You think the French military is comparable in any way to the US?

And this ignores the strategic considerations of the French went to Dien Bien Phu.

When the insurgents develop heavy artillery capable of accurate fire and capable of avoiding US counterbatteries perhaps you will have a point. Currently they aren't even close.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Spoken like a true military history neophyte.

I am out

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

It just makes it appear that you had no point.

Whenever you can't make a reasoned argument attack the validity of the other poster.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I am working on some calculus homework and trying to get some work done at the same time. Serious multitasking is going on here. Please except my apology for being short in the previous comment.

Please know that what you suggest is a very reasonable political solution to what is perceived as a bad situation. However, if you talk to any combat commander with experience, you would get the same answer. The best defense is a good offense. Hunting these people down before they have a chance to pick and chose their attacks is always to best way to go about it with the fewest casualties. The reason is because if we chose the time and location for the battle, as opposed to sitting in a fortified base, we have the tactical advantage and the enemy combatant is at a severe disadvantage. If we set up in a fortified base, the rolls would be reversed and we would be at a severe disadvantage tactically. The better option is to just leave completely and set up shop in Jordan to do what you propose.

Either way, the best choices are to be on the offensive or just leave totally. This is a simplistic explanation, but if you engage any military tactician in a discussion of the pros and cons being debated here, unless you are looking for a purely political solution, your suggestion would be strongly discouraged.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

I generally agree. And I would strongly oppose changing to defensive posture while trying to maintain the same military objectives. That would be a certain recipe for disaster.

However the Salazar plan, as I understand it, speaks to changing the mission to a training mission with no combat role.

Honestly I think that the Salazar plan is a flawed plan simply because I don't think we can really train the Iraqi forces. But we could certainly safe havens in which risk to American soldiers would be relatively low, certainly lower than patrolling hostile streets.

But the entire point of this diary was to try and engage in reasonable debate. If we discard every option out of hand other than the current plan and complete withdrawal, are we really engaging in reasonable debate? Or are we engaging in an Us vs Them debate in which both sides set up on their side of the ditch and do battle?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Don't forget the difference in terrain, too, which, if my history is correct, enabled surprise and the positioning of artillery in the mountains overlooking the bases.

The French chose Dien Bien Phu because of it's strategic location not because of its defensive strength. They felt that the Viet Minh were not a legitimate force. They didn't realize that they had full fledged artillery that could fire from defensive positions onto the base.

It was flawed thinking as they thought they could build a strengthened position there and wipe out the Viet Minh once and for all.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

One interesting thought I had reading this was the siege of Budapest in 1944/45. As the Soviets gradually moved the line closer to the city limits and, eventually, to a complete takeover of Pest, The Nazi's and Hungarian Honved blew up the seven majestic bridges across the Danube and retreated to Castle Hill in Buda. This was certainly the best defensive fortification on the Eastern Front, and perhaps in the whole of Europe.

The Hill has natural tunnels from the erosion of ancient aquifers and the Nazi's used it to their advantage, building a vast underground complex, complete with a fully functional hospital nearly the size of a baseball field. An airstrip was fashioned out of a long field called vermezo (appropriatley named 'Blood Field'). The Soviets had a roughly 350-1 troop advantage. For every Nazi/Honved killed, 13 Soviets were killed. Castle Hill was bombed day and night, but the underground fortifications allowed the defenders to hold out for months.

But the ring got tighter, supplies grew more scarce and it was only a matter of time. Some 70,000 troops and civilians attempted a breakout of Castle Hill and were largely mowed down on the streets of Buda, in and around what is now (another appropriate name) Moscow Square. The fortress was so strong it gave the impression of invincibility, which led to many thousands of civilians to seek refuge there, which in the end meant much greater blooodshed when the siege at last proved too strong.

The moral of the story is that, even in the most ideal conditions for fortification, defensive positions are almost always unsuccessful military positions unless they are combined with offensive sorties or maneuvers. Often the problem is a lack of mission. Hitler extolled the use of building fortress cities to stem the Red Army tide, but his generals would always lament 'what then?' A mission which merely protects a military fortress is not the kind of mission which is forward thinking, or which sustains necessary levels of troop morale.

Certainly I understand that military fortresses in Iraq entail a far weaker enemy than the Red Army horde, but the lack of any real mission remains a serious problem with this argument.

This was all an excuse to talk about an intensely fascinating moment in history, the siege of Budapest, so excuse my tangential ramblings.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Interesting stuff and I wasn't aware of it myself.

In the context of this discussion the mission would be to train Iraqis to deal with the problem themselves. We would not be involved in a direct combat role.

Given those mission requirements we could build an essentially impenetrable base considering the enemy.

Now we can discuss whether that is the best strategy moving forward. I have my concerns personally and I think that an over the horizon force in Kurdistan would be a better solution. But this option is a viable one from an operational standpoint.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

You must have missed last years dust up in Israel and Lebanon.
No way we bomb civilian positions they would be fire at us from. Flyerhawk your side would scream for total withdrawal the first time our troops went after them and any casualties resulted. US or civilian. The ISG is a lot of hot air and a total waste of time.

But you have to realize that we would build this fortification where ever we wanted.

You would build it in an area that was not susceptible to rocket attacks from urban locations.

The Israelis are not the United States military. Their countermeasure abilities don't match ours.

This isn't radical thinking. The military knows how to do this sort of thing. If they aren't burdened with having a defensive position picked for them they can find a spot that would be virtually impenetrable.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

defeatist in nature and a great recruiting tool for the enemy. Sort of a "See how the infidels cower behind their walls" kind of thing.

Apparently radical thinking these days is upping the troop strength and taking the fight to the enemy- but apparently this is too radical for Congress. They wanted a change and they got it, now it is apparent that they just wanted us to surrender so they can pin it on their real enemy, Bush.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

I am not advocating this proposal or condemning it.

I was simply pointing out that the argument that we couldn't do it is flawed.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I was simply pointing out that the argument that we couldn't do it is flawed.

More intellectual mindplay from flyerhawk.

I don't believe that anyone was arguing that we physically couldn't try to do it; we can do anything we put our minds to. The argument was that Salazar/Alexander would be stupid (fixed fortifications are a waste of time and don't work in the long run), counterproductive (the enemy can still attack us, we just can't attack them), impossible in real terms (they end up nickel and dimeing us to death) and a violation of everything that our modern military is trained to do (take the fight to the enemy).

But this has been is pretty much your standard procedure at RedState. If I were an editor you'd have been gone from here long ago. Not because you disagree with people but because of the manner in which you do it.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

I can't tell you how sad it makes me feel to hear you say you would ban me. And of course it's not because I disagree with you. It's my style because I think that the terms of service point out that argumentative styles are strictly verboten. Certainly no one else here engages in argumentative styles.

Either you think that we can physically a secure perimeter to train indigent forces or you do.

Your points are not valid. First off all we aren't talking about fixed fortifications. We are talking about a secure military base. Second of all I completely disagree with your assertion that they could attack us but we could not attack them. I have no idea where you are pulling that one from.

As I said upthread the point of this diary was to engage in reasonable debate. You are seeking to prevent that by discarding out of hand any solution other than the current one. That is not reasonable in any way. And the fact that you wish to engage in invective betrays your intentions.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I am not advocating this proposal or condemning it.

I was simply trolling for replies.

Hooray!

The diary never went anywhere because people were discarding options without any consideration and based on faulty assumptions.

Honestly if I wanted to troll for replies there are far bigger fish here at RS.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

IMO, the most faulty assumption in this whole thread is that Americans can build some facility in Iraq that the terrorists could not figure out a way to cause damage enough to get the American left to get us to leave. There are buildings no longer standing in New York because of terrorists. Our Pentagon has sustained serious damage. Terrorists are not going to be defeated by Americans hiding in some hardened site. Terrorists are going to be defeated by killing them.

Terrorists are going to be defeated by killing them.

We've killed an awful lot of them already. Yet they are still fighting away.

I also reject your notion that we couldn't build a compound that the terrorists couldn't break into.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

are still fighting?

IMO, it would be impossible to prove that a compound could be built that the terrorists couldn't break into. Iran backs the terrorists in every way. Iran has already said they are going to destroy Israel. I submit that destroying 20,000 or whatever number of Americans in Iraq who claimed they could not be destroyed would move to a much higher priority than destroying Israel; just to reap the propaganda reward that destroying them would produce.

Americans can't even agree to build a fence to protect their borders, how could anyone believe they would agree to send to Iraq the money needed to build a new Ft Knox?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson