Osama Bin Laden committed 9/11, yet somehow now he's not a important target anymore. Pakistan or rather Warizstan is a base for Al Qaeda and Taliban which sends arms and forces northward to fight coalition forces in Afghanistan. The CIA's main component responsible for tracking Osama Bin Laden was closed down in January of 2005.

What does that say.

I agree and disagree on many of her views. Mostly because as a immigrant living in America she has lost touch with the Islamic community, and has now declined to making inflammatory statements everywhere she goes instead of actually working to some end.

"Other Jews, such as Judea Pearl (father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl), have strongly criticized Sultan's polemics. In an op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times (June 25, 2006) and titled "Islam’s Ann Coulter," Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, who attended a fundraiser for a local Jewish organization where Sultan was a speaker, wrote "Sultan’s over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center (of Southern California), insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that’s one reason why I eventually walked out of the event."

Everything she says is simply conjecture. You can't blame religion for being abused and corrupted by various power hungry individuals, but then again how do you at the same time defend democracy being brought through bombs? And honestly if the Palestinian people could afford F-16s, they would use them instead of suicide bombers. Suicide bombing is not a point reached out of irrational religious fervor, it's reached by human desperation at seeing nothing being done about your plight for over 60 years or seeing your country taken over by a goverment preaching freedom and democracy, while it appoints its own ministers and goverment behind a emerald concrete walled complex away from the people.

If what she said was really true. There would have been a religious and cultural war spreading back to the Crusades, but we're not, because this is ALL INVENTED just like the Crusades. And the more troops and soldiers we send to bring 'freedom', the more we galvanize the people that see this as a military occupation, the more we create the very thing we want to avoid. If this is really a war for the fate of western civilization then maybe we should get the draft back, and send 500,000 troops. But we won't, because it's NOT.

The whole fiasco about Iraq having had weapons of mass destruction is a perpetuated lie that is still defended under the guise of bad intelligence and such, not mentioning the clear fact that Iraq was under UN sanctions and a NO FLY ZONE with US and UK fighters occasionally firing a few cruise missiles. The whole nation was under watch by Coalition Forces stationed in the Gulf. Militarily ask yourself if it's advisable to develop a nuclear weapon to attack the US under those conditions. The moment that happens it gives the US total carte blanche in using it's own nuclear arsenal. Now in a nuclear stand off who do you think would survive? Developing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction is no avenue for any other nation on the planet.

But what do I know am a liberal defeatist communist right QM?

Military escalation would only be viewed as an expansion of the forces, you do forget that while here in the west we put up with rhetoric, Iraqis are the ones who see massive military bases established in the Iraqi green zones. It would only drive more people into militias and various insurgent forces, the American presence creates this, there is a common enemy to attack by all sides.

From our perspective it looks like we are helping them out, but you forget that Iraqis were welcoming coalition forces in 1991, only to see them stop, pull back impose sanctions and empower Saddam to the point that you had to be in support of him or face certain death. Saddam is gone, the Americans are sticking around, Haliburton is making billions, while we are losing valuable voluntary troops. What's more sickening is that military presence is now little based on honor or duty, but economic reasons, going to small cities and communities to people who have nothing and hunting them down to recruit them into the army. Blackwater and other PMCs run around Iraq with no Army R.O.E. oversight or rules, they can take up any offensive position against Iraqis, the rules of the army don't apply to them.

More forces, more bullish positions would only strengthen and create the very Islamic army against the west. The only reason the American goverment will never pullout or do anything on it's own within this administration would be admitting defeat in their eyes, working multilaterally seems like such a horrible idea. However the fast pace of global economic interlinking must force the American people to reconsider their position, there is a chance now for a possible turnaround, but it will not happen, it takes a certain man to try and recover what has happened and that man is not in the White house. Nor has any candidate really proven themselves so much either.

Exactly right.

The moment for humanitarian intervention in Iraq was in 1991. Although the Bush Administration pretends that humanitarian intervention is the goal now, the war plan by Cheney/Rumsfeld and the actions/inactions of the CPA under Garner and Bremer give the lie to that one.

My concern is that Iraq War 2003 will erroneously support the conclusions of the military "realists" of 1990-1995 and stand for the proposition of isolationism first. The Coalition force betrayed that region in 1991 through the doctrine of military realism. It had the troop strength to prevent a massacre and it did nothing.

Rickegee, I would want to agree with you on the point that invading Iraq has certain humanitarian issues that are favorable. And in someways thats the way I resigned it once the war began and I witnessed it in Kuwait.

But realistically if the freedom and democracy in Iraq really was an agenda for the American or Western governments it would have been done in 1991. When there was populist support for the removal of Saddam Hussein, a rebellion in the south and north of the country post the 100 days. However coalition forces let Saddam use attack helicopters to crush these domestic movements for democracy.

So what happened is the international community just forgot about Iraq, US forces occasionally bombed them, the UN sanctions did alot of damage to the civilians, back room dealing allowed the regime to survive. Saddam Hussein became more entrenched in his position because he was the sole provider of anything under sanctions and no fly zones. The civilian population saw the chance of liberation stop and pull back.

History is not the actions of men in power, but what that power means to the little people who have none, to the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the soldiers who enlist because they have little choice and come from far flung places like Little Rock and Colorado Springs and a million other places we never really hear of.

I hope for one thing that History gives this time it's full needed coverage for it is something I never want to see happen ever again. What I hate most is how cynical I have become about the human race given all this, because quite frankly it shows how far reaching certain people's ability is to fool the most powerful nation in the world into basically falling on it's own sword.

"There is no clear plan for the deployment of the extra 21,000 troops. Most will be stationed in Iraq and the Anbar province. There is no additional task given to these other then blanket security operations which would only mean exposing the troops to more hostile fire."

Yes, it will expose more soldiers to hostile fire. The fact remains however that casualties throughout the Iraq War have been remarkably light given the nature and length of operations we have been conducting there. Over 3,000 deaths and 20,000+ wounded looks horrible on paper, and is certainly tragic, but the reality is that the casualty rates are not yet high enough to have any significant impact on combat effectiveness. If a given Rifle company loses 7 men and has about 25 wounded over the course of a one year tour (these were the casualties sustained in a cavalry company commanded by a friend of mine), there will be very little impact on the overall combat effectiveness of said company. Yes, casualties are bad but so long as they do not significantly impact combat effectiveness they have no tactical or operational impact upon the conduct of a war. They do however further sour public opinion, but at this stage of the game I think the people who will only support a war below a certain casualty threshold have long since stopped supporting the Iraq war.

"At the same time you are dropping an influx of troops into a country where 70% of the population looks upon your forces as occupiers. All that would do is unify the resistance and insurgency against coalition forces even more."

Certainly true, but at the same time the Iraqis are absolutely desperate for some kind of security and increasingly do not care who provides it:

"Now, it's one thing to say that polls show -- American commanders say it -- that most Iraqis, 80 percent of them, do not like being occupied, true. But if you ask any individual Iraqi in any of these areas whether he would rather see more of American troops, they almost invariably say, "Yes," unless they're members of the Mahdi army or one of the militias, because that's what brings calm to the area." -John Burns, New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june07/baghdad_01-10.html

"It is best I do not use her name. Any Iraqi known to have contact with foreigners is at risk. And security is the only issue that matters now, she says. "Everything depends on it. I am not worrying about democracy, about the economy. The security comes first, and we've lost that." ' -Andrew North, BBC Correspondent, Baghdad

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6192815.stm

The point is that it really does not seem like the Iraqis really care who provides security, at this point, so long as they don't need to be constantly afraid of getting kidnapped or killed by a carbomb. We can talk about cultural differences and national pride etc. but I know that if I had been living in such conditions for several years, I'd be willing to be under "foreign occupation" if it meant I could stop being constantly afraid for myself and my family. Based upon what the above two, and other correspondents are reporting I'd say that the average Iraqi is in a similar state of mind.

"Either way, what will that force increase do without a clear working plan? Are US forces going to be used to actively suppress the Sunni or Shi'a militias?"

That's my understanding. Due to a lack of US and Iraqi National troops a security vacuum was created in Iraq. The Sunni insurgency was able to take such firm root because of said vacuum. The Sunni insurgency eventually began targeting Shiites, which prompted the Shiites to form militias for their own protection. Reprisal killings sparked reprisal killings and the result is a Sunni-Shi'a civil war on top of the original Sunni insurgency. The idea behind the surge is to provide sufficient US forces to establish joint security sites in the key neighborhoods of Baghdad that will take the place of the various militias. If you can get a (relatively) impartial third party providing security in lieu of sectarian militias, you have a possibility of slowing down or even stopping the escalation of reprisal killings.

There is no clear plan for the deployment of the extra 21,000 troops. Most will be stationed in Iraq and the Anbar province. There is no additional task given to these other then blanket security operations which would only mean exposing the troops to more hostile fire.

At the same time you are dropping an influx of troops into a country where 70% of the population looks upon your forces as occupiers. All that would do is unify the resistance and insurgency against coalition forces even more.

Either way, what will that force increase do without a clear working plan? Are US forces going to be used to actively suppress the Sunni or Shi'a militias? Are they going to be used to force a negotiation?

I agree that a force addition looks good on paper, but it looked good on paper back in Vietnam, the additional force elements there were just not enough to back out of what turned into a civil war. The same situation is being repeated here.

If the 21,000 force commitment fails. What then? The US will have no maneuvering and there will be another crushing morale plummet as US forces will pull out like they did in South Vietnam.

In reply to your comment:
“A couple comments.

As Rickegee said, McCain is in the race to win. His shift to the right in order to make it through the primaries can only be expected after what he experienced at the hands of the Bush campaign in NC in 2000. At any rate, his compromising of principles in order to get elected is the exact same behavior displayed by his chief opponent: Hilary.

q[I find his views on the surge dis-speakable even though hes a veteran of the Vietnam war.]q

He's been for more troops since the rioting after the fall of Baghdad. The fundamental element of any counterinsurgency operation is security. Since the enemy is unconventional you cannot destroy him outright, but with sufficient security you can deny his ability to operate freely. The denial of free operation is the foundation from which an insurgency can be defeated; without it, the insurgency will only grow. McCain's position since 2003 has been that there are not sufficient troops to provide that essential level of security, and accordingly additional forces should be deployed to Iraq.

At this stage in the game, the 21,000 troop surge is all the extra manpower we have to commit. It probably won't be sufficient but it's worth a try. The National Intelligence Estimate released today makes it pretty damn clear that a withdrawal conducted over the next 12-18 month would cause the situation in Iraq to worsen precipitously, further destabilizing the region. In the face of that we have to find some way to stabilize Iraq, possibly through a soft partition or by some other means. Having 5 additional brigades in Iraq at the very least will give us additional flexibility. If they are able to improve the security situation sufficiently to allow for political and economic developments, so much the better. If not, the additional forces provides flexibility for whatever different strategy we attempt to pursue. ”

*comedy because it is...

double Speak

The story from the troops has always been that the condition is bad due to mismanagement from above, it's getting worse as troops are being replaced by ungoverned PMC outfits such as Blackwater and Executive Outcomes. They suggestion has been that will they would continue the objective if need be, it's best if if they extradite from Iraq as soon as possible. One of the chief ways they have done is the hearts and minds program combined with a training of the Iraqi Police and National Guard.

Both military organizations coalition forces just disbanded following the end of hostilities, which lead to the mass looting and chaos seen previously. The hearts and minds program is responsible for the 98% of children who are vaccinated.

This was a positive effect, something that would have happened back in 1991 if policies with Iraq were more stringent following the conclusion of the first Gulf war. Arguably the UN was at fault due to restrictions via the oil for food program. The economy simply opened up because the oil for food program was gone, the embargo forced by a no fly zone and trade restrictions was gone. So all those goods and services.

What they are throwing at you are simply the statistics of damage control that was run to fix the shit hole the administration took you, wheres the mention of the smoking gun? The mass wave of propaganda and power point slide shows of chemical tankers and mobile launchers? Wheres the Al Qaeda link? The mention of the fiasco when claiming that Iraq attempted purchase of yellow cake of Nigeria? Which then lead to the outing of Valeria Palme? What about our troops fighting short handed supported by dubious PMCs? Fighting with little to no armour in their vehicles. Like the amount of questions about the actions of this administration is ridiculous. At no point do you feel Bush to be humane because he never says or even alludes that his wrong, alot of republican nuts say its a sign of strength? I don't know what kind of MC Esher sketchbook you came from but that's just ignorant...

That's a really simplistic view, quantummushroom, that's akin to saying yeah well we screwed over a bunch of nations just to gain a foothold for ourselves, we're cool now so stop blaming us.

You don't realize that such activites by the goverment is actually holding you, the average citizen down. How exactly? Well think about the gap between the rich and the poor in America, it's so large now that there is a reduction in the number of people who are middle class.

Now let's think back about all the military incursions that America has been involved in and pick a few cases to look at. We'll look at Nicaragua, this starts back with Theodore Roosevelt who extends the existing Monroe Doctrine in 1904 allowing the US to interfe in a latin american state guilty of "chronic wrong doing" (I mean much more vague can this be). The Monroe doctrine comes to define america's policy in Latin America.

US Marines land in Nicaragua in 1909, after a similar pattern of interventions in Cuba (1898), Honduras (1905) and Panama (1908). Nicaragua becomes a US protectorate there after.

In 1926, Augusto Cesar Sandino lunaches a successful guerilla war against US marines and the Nicaraguan National Guard under Anastasio Somoza Garcia. The Sandinista rebels are a pro-liberal group that insists on a redistribution of land to the peasantry, which is violented opposed by Somoza. Sandino was murdered by the National Guard in 1934, Somoza who is a US ally then runs a brutual dictatorship until 1979 when the Somoza Dynasty is overthrown by Sandinista National Liberational Front. Jimmy Carter at the time tried desperately to prop up Somoza's regime until the bitter end. Nicaragua after years of oppressive rule lay in ruins with 40,000 to 50,0000 killed.

When the Sandinistas finally come into power, everything is done to demonize them with accusations of undemocratic policies, genocide, drug-trafficking. This is while US media remains silent on the documented facts of Sandinistas remarkable reforms. Oxfam, with it's experience of working in over 76 developing nations finds the Nicaraguan goverment to be exceptional in it's commitment to addressing inequities in land ownership, in extending health, educational and agricultural services to poor peasent families.

Until 1989, the US goverment pursues a policy of destabilization by suppyling an insurgent army of 'Contras' in Nicaragua.

The question is "Why would the US goverment feel threatened by socialism in a smaller, weaker country such as Nicaragua"?

This comes down to the Rotten Apple theory. If a tiny impoverished nation with miniuscle resources can begin to do something for it's own population others might ask "Why not us?". The weaker and less economically endowned the nation the greater the example that can be set. The rot could spread, threatening regions of real concern to the rulers of the world.

Same thing with Iran, which in the late 40s grew tired of it's resources being plucked by corporations. The CIA however interevened, a coup occured and the Shah of Iran came into power. This of course back fired a few years later with the extreme Islamic goverment emerging. The US goverment then makes links with Iraq, supporting Iraqi military operations into Iran, while selling arms to both sides. This of course back fires with the usage of Chemical and Biological weapons by Saddam. The US goverment distances itself.

1991, Iraq invades Kuwait. For a long time the international community does not do much other then decry the situation. However intelligence arrives saying that Saddam's forces are massing on the western border of Kuwait with Saudia Arabia. The american administration deems it too risky to allow Saddam to possbily enter Saudia Arabia. And the rest is history. But no wait. It's not all over yet. Suddenly only 100 KM away from Baghdad, coalition forces are pulled back, the regime in Iraq is unchanged, no pressure is placed on the regime to allow free elections to occur.