Prince Harry will not serve in Iraq.

[Philistine]

I think the real issue is the danger he would pose to others.

The fear appears to be that his presence would lead to more attacks on British troops in general (specifically those in Scimitars)--and that to an extent they had already seen this in what may have been "dry runs." See, This Story, for example.

Prince Andrew's presence on the Invicible didn't make it a substantially more attractive target during the Falklands war.

--Philistine

[Purple Fencer]

3rd makes him extraordinarily unlikely to succeed.

I was thinking if something truly drastic happened and Charles AND William were killed

There was also a time when members of the royalty were supposed to go and fight.

True....but this isn't Agincourt...the time of the warrior king is long past.

Only as much as we, in the UK or you in the US, allow the insurgents to make of it.

Again, agreed.....but where would the PR of killing Harry have a greater impact...the US or UK or in the Arab world...the guys who so gleefully celebrate one of their own blowing up a bus full of schoolkids would have a field day.

Another thing it could conceivably do is increase people's determination... Until the event it is hard thing to judge. And again it would depend on how it is handled.

Memories of England's response to the Blitz come to mind..."Right...carry on then"

Now if thiswas during Thatcher's term....duck & cover!

[Gav]

I was thinking if something truly drastic happened and Charles AND William were killed.

Again - extremely unlikely. Even then there are others. People forget that, largely, we in the UK don't seem to care about the royals - except when there is a damn good death to make a scene over.

True....but this isn't Agincourt...the time of the warrior king is long past.

This is also true but it shouldn't stop the a member of the royal family choosing to serve in the army if he wants. If anything this raises my esteem for that particular royal - and I am a republican.

Again, agreed.....but where would the PR of killing Harry have a greater impact...the US or UK or in the Arab world...the guys who so gleefully celebrate one of their own blowing up a bus full of schoolkids would have a field day.

Who knows? This is all pure supposition from both sides. Doesn't look like we'll ever get to find out.

Memories of England's response to the Blitz come to mind..."Right...carry on then"

Not for me! I am not THAT old.

Now if this was during Thatcher's term....duck & cover!

I wonder if Thatcher would have gone to war in Iraq. That's actually quite an intriguing question.

[Purple Fencer]

Again - extremely unlikely. Even then there are others. People forget that, largely, we in the UK don't seem to care about the royals - except when there is a damn good death to make a scene over.

Heh...when i was in England for a few months in 1986 a local friend of mine described them as the country's greatest fund-raisers!

I wonder if Thatcher would have gone to war in Iraq.That's actually quite an intriguing question.

I think she would have....one tough lady!

[Gav]

I think she would have....one tough lady!

Heh - I think she was like Marmite - you either loved or hated her.

Either way I would think it 50-50 for her to go to war. Depends on what she saw as the opportunity for her and the country. I've never really been convinced she was as warlike (in the sense of wanting war) as some people imply; other than as far as she saw it as a political or economic opportunity.

Though I've always been convinced that she was tough. Oh yes...

[Inquartata]

danger that Petreus would never even consider (i.e travelling everywhere by chopper with air cover, 100's of guards and never using the roads)

So, what's your inside source for his personal security arrangements? Because I'm sure that you aren't just asking us to accept an assumption that these are them...right?

I mean, I'm sure he is protected, but you seem awfully sure of detailed things which the military would never release, so what's your source?

I was able to find this quote by John Roberts of CNN: “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored Humvee.”

So much for "never using the roads". Unless they have flying Humvees now.

PS What makes you think travelling in an unarmored helicopter is any safer than travelling in a tank?

Regularly using the roads in Iraq is the most dangerous part of being in Iraq- how do you stop the commander of an armed reconnaisance vehicle from using the roads?

So tanks cannot leave the roads?!

Surely the very word 'reconnaisance' also shows that he would be using roads which had not been previously travelled on (i.e that day) by the rest of a convoy, column or patrol.

Why?

[Inquartata]

The fear appears to be that his presence would lead to more attacks on British troops in general (specifically those in Scimitars)

Meh, so this is our military goal in Iraq now? To avoid being attacked?

I must side with Gav. He's a soldier, he signed on for the risk. So did those who would serve with him. One does not become a soldier to be safe. And risks vary, by the luck of your assignment---being sent to Ramadi instead of Mosul, for instance. Proximity to a target is but another risk. Enlisted men detailed to any officer---his radioman, orderly, whatever---are at higher risk than their fellows, because the officer is a preferred target ( which is why one doesn't salute officers in the field unless one is trying to get them killed ). The enlisted infantryman in turn is at greater risk than the company cook...who is at greater risk than the Divisional finance clerk.

The propaganda value to the enemy of a dead Royal is a consideration, but I'm not sure it ought to supercede all others. After all, princes and even kings have been killed in combat before. No doubt those too were PR coups for the enemy, but I am dubious about the lasting value of such a coup. Especially when it's a "surplus" prince...

[Philistine]

Meh, so this is our military goal in Iraq now? To avoid being attacked?

No. But our military goal isn't to try to provoke attacks. And I'm assuming that Britain's military goal isn't to increase the number of attacks on its soldiers--and civilians in their sector, for no military gain.

I must side with Gav. He's a soldier, he signed on for the risk. So did those who would serve with him. One does not become a soldier to be safe. And risks vary, by the luck of your assignment---being sent to Ramadi instead of Mosul, for instance. Proximity to a target is but another risk. Enlisted men detailed to any officer---his radioman, orderly, whatever---are at higher risk than their fellows, because the officer is a preferred target ( which is why one doesn't salute officers in the field unless one is trying to get them killed ). The enlisted infantryman in turn is at greater risk than the company cook...who is at greater risk than the Divisional finance clerk.

Sure. And I think it speaks well for Harry that he has been trying to go to Iraq.

The difference between his situation, and those you mention are that the danger the others are put in are in direct relation to the military utility of their position. Radiomen are not detailed to officers to make them look good--they are there to provide a communications net.

Harry's presence in theater adds nothing, militarily. There's a very good argument that it detracts from the British military mission, as it seems likely that his presence will draw additional attacks on civilians in areas that he patrols (as well as additional attacks on the British military). Protecting the civilians in their sector is the military goal. His presence would be at least counterproductive.

The propaganda value to the enemy of a dead Royal is a consideration, but I'm not sure it ought to supercede all others. After all, princes and even kings have been killed in combat before. No doubt those too were PR coups for the enemy, but I am dubious about the lasting value of such a coup. Especially when it's a "surplus" prince...

True, to an extent. It's kind of a lose-lose. He goes and gets killed, bad PR. He gets held back, also bad PR. In the end, I think it's a reasonable tactical choice to not send him, based on the mission itself, exclusive of PR issues. YMMV.

--Philistine

[jBirch]

No. But our military goal isn't to try to provoke attacks. And I'm assuming that Britain's military goal isn't to increase the number of attacks on its soldiers--and civilians in their sector, for no military gain.

Well put and entirely accurate.

Harry's presence in theater adds nothing, militarily. There's a very good argument that it detracts from the British military mission, as it seems likely that his presence will draw additional attacks on civilians in areas that he patrols (as well as additional attacks on the British military). Protecting the civilians in their sector is the military goal. His presence would be at least counterproductive.

Again, well put. However...I'm going to make a modification to your last statement and argue that while it is counter-productive to the MILITARY mission, it is not to the diplomatic and political mission.

The fact that a British Royal (the height of privilege and the very image of Western excess) would serve in a junior officer capacity in the most dangerous place around speaks volumes to the values of the place that let him serve. To hold him back, equally speaks about their values.

James.

[scrapinpeg]

Whenever JBirch starts lauding the British royals, I can't help picturing a scene from "Unforgiven"...


INT. BARBERSHOP - DAY

English Bob, delighting in the smooth feel of his freshly
shaved pink cheeks, climbs cheerfully out of the barber
chair, still chattering at the poor BARBER.

ENGLISH BOB
...can see that there's a dignity
in royalty... a majesty... that
precludes the likelihood of
assassination.

The Barber is applying his little whisk broom to Bob's
waistcoat while WW pulls out his purse to make payment.

ENGLISH BOB contd.
Why, if you were to point a pistol
at a King or a Queen, sir, I can
assure you your hand would shake
as though palsied...

BARBER
(looking at Bob's pistols)
I wouldn't point no pistol at
nobody, sir.

ENGLISH BOB
(putting on his frock
coat over his guns)
A wise policy. But if you did,
I can assure you, the sight of
royalty would cause you to
dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed
and stand... in awe.
(pause)
Whereas, a president... I mean,
why not shoot a president?

[Maeve_Mari]

Now all Al Qaeda has to do is get a roster of British Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and start threatening them "by name" one by one, and soon they'll all be on their way home, too, I suppose. Allah akbar!

Send me the Roster and Photocards for all the soldiers. I'd be more than happy to sponsor the return home of all our boys and girls from this Debacle on Terror!

[Inquartata]

Will you also accept responsibility for abetting the next terrorist attack here in the US?

I am convinced that we have not seen any follow-ups to 9-11 because the planners have held their hands. They don't want to refresh the sense of outraged anger which made the nation support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place. They know they have public opinion on the run, and that it's just a matter of time before our politicians follow, and thereafter the troops. Whereupon the terrs can claim they beat us, they made us flee the mighty Islamic sword in fear, they won, see, we told you America was weak and destined to be defeated by the followers of Allah; and then they can attack us here again with relative impunity. And again. And again.

Yeah, that'll be a lot better.

[jeff]

Inq summarizes the situation, but it's worse than that. If we stay, it's to the terrorists' advantage because they can kill Americans cheaply and without PR onus of killing civilians (though I'm sure they'd be happy to do more mass murder on US soil), it's a massive recruitment source, and it even makes money for Al Qaeda to funnel back to Pakistan. All while proving the weakness of US military and political efforts. If we go, it shows we were weak and irresolute, and gives them a massive propaganda victory.

What's the way forward? The Bush administration's "trust us" stance is useless - it's their arrogance, mendacity and incompetence that got us in this situation. I don't think US citizens want to have billions spent and their soldiers killed to futilely try to limit Shiite/Sunni sectarian killing. Lack of accountability for them or the weak Iraqi government doesn't add to my faith that things will stabilize there based on continuing our current actions. John McCain was against the "surge" before he was for it (shades of Kerry...) saying it was too little too late to be effective. What face-saving scheme can be contrived to make removing ourselves less painful to ourselves and to the Iraqi people? Does anyone here think we can succeed by persevering with current strategy? I doubt it.

[pigeonmeister]

[[/B]QUOTE=Inquartata;560602]Will you also accept responsibility for abetting the next terrorist attack here in the US?[/QUOTE]

Pretty cheap shot based on assumption that you cannot possibly prove, did you learn that from Rove? I could say that those that supported the war, made it a reality and continue to fan its flame, are responsible for abetting the 7/7 bombers.

I am convinced that we have not seen any follow-ups to 9-11 because the planners have held their hands.

We all know that if the roles were reversed you would make a comment similar to.. 'Well I am very glad you're so convinced, but your convictions are your own, irrelevant and unsubstantiated, affair'

The most recent National Intelligence Estimate. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe."

An 'American intelligence offical' involved in the report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,”

In terms of the 'we have scared AQ into not attacking us argument'- Another view was reported by the then Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee, based entirely on unclassified documents, it details a growing jihad movement and states: “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

Are you arguing that the Iraq war has dissuaded, by example alone, another attack on the US?

Surely basing a foreign policy success, like Iraq, on the fact that another 9/11has not been repeated is ridiculous. After all there was not an attack in the 5 years before 9/11, even though AQ was still 'at war' with the US. To argue that there would have been another 9/11 had the US not invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, seems equally absurd and counter-factual

If a perceived American defeat in Iraq will cause more attacks on America. Then you have to..

1) Define what state Iraq has to be left in to not constitute a 'defeat'
2) Explain a strategy to achieve this based on information that is credible.

Maybe you are arguing that regardless of whether the invasion of Iraq made America safer- a withdrawal from Iraq definitely would make America more vulnerable to attack. That kind of implies, both a continues US sacrifice, and that getting involved in the first place was a mistake that hasn't made America, or the world, any safer.

They don't want to refresh the sense of outraged anger which made the nation support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place.

Say there was an another attack- who would the US invade? Who would this carthatic anger be directed at, and why would AQ not wish to provoke another Iraq?

Whereupon the terrs can claim they beat us, they made us flee the mighty Islamic sword in fear, they won, see, we told you America was weak and destined to be defeated by the followers of Allah; and then they can attack us here again with relative impunity. And again. And again.

You are implying that a US withdrawal is a greater encouragement/radicalising factor for jihadism. That's a total misunderstanding of the threat. Jihad thrives, if anything, from loss or a sense of outrage- Palestine, Chechyna, US troops in holy territory, the behaviour of the Gulf monarchies. The Soviet withdrawal in Afghanistan did not cause more radicalisation than the above factors, and certainly not more than the original Soviet invasion. Is that Soviet withdrawal, rather than the contemporarily concurrent encroachment on 'Islamic' territory by US troops, ever a stated as a factor in justifying or encouraging current attacks? No- it was the US advance, rather than the Soviet withdrawal, which has recruited more suicide bombers.

Iraq has ALREADY radicalised the jihadist movement and encouraged more hatred of America, a withdrawal might give them a base to operate. Yet this operational bonus (also evidence of a failed policy) is not the argument you have made. You are saying that this would purely encourage more attacks. In many other debates about jihadism the US loves to go on about the role of the 'Islamic victim mentality'. Why is this curiously absent in your thinking now?

[Inquartata]

[
Pretty cheap shot based on assumption that you cannot possibly prove, did you learn that from Rove?

No, did you learn to distract with invented charges from Michael Moore?

Are we done with the gratuitous ad hominems now?

I could say that those that supported the war, made it a reality and continue to fan its flame, are responsible for abetting the 7/7 bombers.

You could, but with far less analogical accuracy.

There have been terrorist attacks in many countries since 9-11. There have been none in the United States. To what do you attribute that conspicuous quietude, the great competence of the Department of Homeland Security?

We all know that if the roles were reversed you would make a comment similar to.. 'Well I am very glad you're so convinced, but your convictions are your own, irrelevant and unsubstantiated, affair'

"We"?

At any rate, the rationale has at least a logical consistency, which fits the current circumstances, eg no more attacks have occurred on US soil. Dr. Al-Zawahri may be a fanatic, but he is also no idiot. Why endanger an impending victory in Iraq when you can just be patient awhile longer?

Again---what's your explanation?

An 'American intelligence offical' involved in the report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,”

Would this be someone from the same community which peddled "lies" to enable the Bush administration to drag us into an "optional" war in Iraq?

And suddenly you trust assessments from this quarter. Is it only because you agree with this particular one, or have you some more solid foundation for it?

In terms of the 'we have scared AQ into not attacking us argument'-

Ah...who exactly has made that argument? Or is that just a straw man?

Are you arguing that the Iraq war has dissuaded, by example alone, another attack on the US?

Quite the contrary. I am asserting my belief that AQ is voluntarily holding its hand, because public and political opinion in this country is about to force us to surrender in Iraq and to withdraw, thus presenting the terrorist world with a victory on a silver platter. Stirring the American public to anger again would only weaken the momentum building for forcing the Administration to withdraw the troops, and possibly postpone the "insurgency's" prospective triumph there. Why do that? The follow-up attacks can wait until after the left has forced us to run with our tail between our national legs, with its incessant howlings about "unjust wars" and "wasted American lives" and---well, you probably know the party line on that score better than I do.

After all there was not an attack in the 5 years before 9/11, even though AQ was still 'at war' with the US.

What's your point?

I fail to see how that invalidates my assessment of AQ's strategic behavior since the invasion of Iraq. Do you believe that they must always act in a certain way despite changing circumstances? That as they have acted before they must always act, and so they are acting thus now? That they are incapable of changing their plans and methodologies?

To argue that there would have been another 9/11 had the US not invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, seems equally absurd and counter-factual.

Really? Why?

If a perceived American defeat in Iraq will cause more attacks on America. Then you have to..

1) Define what state Iraq has to be left in to not constitute a 'defeat'
2) Explain a strategy to achieve this based on information that is credible.

Do I? Why?

Maybe you are arguing that regardless of whether the invasion of Iraq made America safer- a withdrawal from Iraq definitely would make America more vulnerable to attack. That kind of implies, both a continues US sacrifice, and that getting involved in the first place was a mistake that hasn't made America, or the world, any safer.

No, it doesn't. It asserts that a withdrawal from Iraq simply because the left has managed to turn public and political opinion in that direction---a withdrawal without regard for conditions in Iraq, without regard for success or failure of the military effort to stabilize that country---would make the US more vulnerable to attack and less safe.

I know you don't like this position, but yes, it's better that AQ and jihadists generally be drawn irresistibly to Iraq than that they have leisure to spread their depredations more widely through the world, and specifically here.

Say there was an another attack- who would the US invade? Who would this carthatic anger be directed at, and why would AQ not wish to provoke another Iraq?

Your attention appears to be wandering.

My point was that arousing the ire and vengefulness of the American public again would go a long way toward eroding the anti-war sentiment so carefully cultivated by those who believe as you do over the past few years. It would dilute efforts by the left to force the Administration to withdraw from Iraq and possibly Afghanistan as well. It would make it easier for the Adminitration to keep the military efforts going in those countries. Who said anything about "invading" some other country?

You are implying that a US withdrawal is a greater encouragement/radicalising factor for jihadism.

I am not implying any such thing. I am saying it rather straightforwardly, and in no uncertain terms.

It's nothing more than schoolyard dynamics on a global scale: To show weakness only spurs the bully to greater efforts.

That's a total misunderstanding of the threat. Jihad thrives, if anything, from loss or a sense of outrage-

Pardon me---how do you know this? Are you yourself a jihadist?

At any rate, it scarcely matters whence the phenomen originates. It matters what it does once it is born, how it behaves. And it seems to behave like a spoiled, vicious child determined to get its own way. In this case, "its own way" is much more than "the US out of Iraq" or even "the US ( and Zionists ) out of the Middle East". It's the establishment of the Caliphate, world dominance, all mankind subjected to Islam and its laws. It won't achieve that by letting us alone.

Is that Soviet withdrawal, rather than the contemporarily concurrent encroachment on 'Islamic' territory by US troops, ever a stated as a factor in justifying or encouraging current attacks?

Huh?

What the devil would the actions of an enemy of ours have to do with behavior towards us by another of its enemies?

Iraq has ALREADY radicalised the jihadist movement and encouraged more hatred of America, a withdrawal might give them a base to operate.

You can demonstrate this, I am sure?

In many other debates about jihadism the US loves to go on about the role of the 'Islamic victim mentality'. Why is this curiously absent in your thinking now?

I have no idea what you are going on about here...

[Philistine]

{snip}
Quite the contrary. I am asserting my belief that AQ is voluntarily holding its hand, because public and political opinion in this country is about to force us to surrender in Iraq and to withdraw, thus presenting the terrorist world with a victory on a silver platter. {snip}

To what do you attribute the lack of attacks in the US in the first 3-4 years after 9/11, prior to public opinion turning against the war in Iraq?

For that matter, you never did say why the lack of attacks in the US since 9/11 indicates a calculated move in AQ's strategy more than the lack of attacks after the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 did.

I'm not as confident that I can divine AQ's proposed tactics and operational capacity as you are--mostly because of it's nature. AQ is not a centralized, highly regimented organization in constant contact. It's a loose confederation of cells and other organizations, with very often conflicting views on how best to accomplish their goals--or even what those goals are.

Will AQ and other groups spin a US withdrawal as a victory by them--sure. Of course, they'll do that no matter what action the US takes in Iraq.

--Philistine

[pigeonmeister]

You could, but with far less analogical accuracy.

Of course Anological accuracy?!- you just accused someone of being responsible for killing more Americans because you BELIEVE (and I turn back your own jibe- are you a jihadists?) that ending the war will persuade them of a need to target America with more enthusiasm. Whilst I say that Blair has admitted that Iraq has recruited more terrorists in the Uk. If I'm honest I don't think either of us should use this 'politics of fear' in the debate (though that is essentially the basis of Republican strategy)- which is why I said 'I could' say...

Whatever- it appears that most Americans, according to the polls at least, feel America is more vulnerable because of the war in Iraq. Of course they are all spineless lefties who refuse to stay the course and have been polluted by the defeatist rhetoric of opportunistic democratic politicians and those damn dixie chicks and I gues you've been right in every one of your other 19,000 posts.

There have been terrorist attacks in many countries since 9-11. There have been none in the United States. To what do you attribute that conspicuous quietude, the great competence of the Department of Homeland Security?

I think you are missing my point. 9/11 was not a declaration of war- that had come much earlier. There were no attacks 5 years before or 5 years after 9/11. The picture is thus very far from...look since we started throwing bombs around we have thus prevented them. I fail to see why this is such a difficult proposition for you.

Could it be that after 9/11 the expectation that attacks after attack would come through was questionable, and in reality says very little about Iraq.

Indeed even if I accept your theory- that the AQ 'top brass' (and there are many operating against America outside their operational command) are 'holding fire' because the lefties are about to deliver them a sensational victory. Surely this situation has not been continues for 6 years?!! Considering it was impossible to campaign on a 'bring the troops home' ticket (thus evidence of public opinion not about to insist on withdrawal) in 2004 then that's at least 3 years you have to explain a lack of attack without your cock and bull theory. In reality the 'swing' within Congress and the general public has only really made withdrawal inevitable and the war 'lost' (at least in your eyes) in the last year or so. In January 2006 the 'would you favour withdrawal' polls were pretty equal'- if anything more wanted them to stay.

At any rate, the rationale has at least a logical consistency, which fits the current circumstances, eg no more attacks have occurred on US soil. Dr. Al-Zawahri may be a fanatic, but he is also no idiot. Why endanger an impending victory in Iraq when you can just be patient awhile longer?

So- when did AQ make this shift in strategy and how do you explain the lack of attacks before then?

Again---what's your explanation?

My explanation has no bearing on disputing the fact that those Americans calling for anything other than outright victory in Iraq are somehow inviting death upon their compatriots- and would be responsible for abetting the enemy (a truly appalling rhetorical proposition in my opinion)

My explanation- I don't know, there has been one significant foreign terrorist attack on US soil in 50 years, I don't think you have enough data to explain patterns for when attacks should come and why.

And suddenly you trust assessments from this quarter. Is it only because you agree with this particular one, or have you some more solid foundation for it?

You're probably right- but I think we are all free (even the President) to pick and choose the information we feel reflects are own understanding- however misinformed others might feel it to be. I don't believe that the war in Iraq has advanced the cause of freedom or that it's commencement explains a lack of another 9/11. Thus I agree with Intelligence reports that state Iraq has made the world less safe.

Ah...who exactly has made that argument? Or is that just a straw man?

Many- but If I have done you a disservice on his front I apologise. I'm glad you don't subcribe to the view that Iraq was supposed to represent a Caesar like example of wrath to dissuade other potential attackers. Of course the issue of whether Iraq should have been connected to the War on Terror at all, I am sure we still disagree.

Quite the contrary. I am asserting my belief that AQ is voluntarily holding its hand, because public and political opinion in this country is about to force us to surrender in Iraq and to withdraw, thus presenting the terrorist world with a victory on a silver platter.

Again- it's a nice theory that is nothing more than your own belief that flies in the face of what your government is saying in terms of the continued reports of 'foiled attacks'. I would also have thought that the USG would have taken your 'politics of fear' to the debate and informed these opportunistic senators that they had specific intelligence substantiating your theory.

Either way your position requires an explanation of why AQ 'voluntarily' held its hand before public opinion reached this critical mass.

Stirring the American public to anger again would only weaken the momentum building for forcing the Administration to withdraw the troops, and possibly postpone the "insurgency's" prospective triumph there. Why do that?

I'm not sure that OBL or Dr. Al-Zawahri have the operational capability to place an international 'hold fire' on all the many jihadists groups in the world wishing to target America. Doubtless you are better informed than me of their strategy.

The follow-up attacks can wait until after the left has forced us to run with our tail between our national legs, with its incessant howlings about "unjust wars" and "wasted American lives" and---well, you probably know the party line on that score better than I do.

Such an arrogant position- it can't be that America bit off more than it can chew. I can't be that the political or military components were incompatable. It can't be that Iraqis had a role in forcing a withdrawal- both the Iraqi government in failing and in the insurgents in helping it to fail. No- only Americans can cause America to fail. Such a unique American mindset. Did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan because of a dip in its strictly controlled public opinion? No- in that case it was the brave insurgents (possibly because they were, of course, supported by Americans) It really is beyond your comprehension that this war could be determined by events in Iraq, isn't it.

Really? Why?

Why is it counter-factual to argue that if the US hadn't attacked another 9/11 would have occured? Surely you can work that one out for yourself.

Bit like saying that if 9/11 hadn't occured the US would have invaded Iraq anyway.

Do I? Why?

I would have thought that the argument- defeat means more attacks on Amerca requires an explanation of how to avoid this defeat. Of course if you define victory as a capability to avoid withdrawal indefinitely at whatever cost then I am sure you can.

No, it doesn't. It asserts that a withdrawal from Iraq simply because the left has managed to turn public and political opinion in that direction---a withdrawal without regard for conditions in Iraq, without regard for success or failure of the military effort to stabilize that country---would make the US more vulnerable to attack and less safe.

I know you don't like this position, but yes, it's better that AQ and jihadists generally be drawn irresistibly to Iraq than that they have leisure to spread their depredations more widely through the world, and specifically here.

First of all, I dont like this position because it demands a callous desregard for Iraqis and how many of them die. In this light I have to disregard your statement 'regard for conditions in Iraq' as lacking any genuine meaning on your behalf. If you think that there is any moral basis to inviting legions of suicide bombers to Iraq then fine.

But if your are going to take this position- I assume that the USG will not use claims that Syria or Iran have helped Jihadists cross the border against them, being as this was all part of the grand strategy?

Second of all- you are now arguing that Iraq has served to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism, radicalisation 'through the world'. Wow- how can you prove this, even if we disregard that it runs contrary to all other studies and reports on the subject.

Only an American would see 3000 9/11 victims as the ultimate provocation by its enemies, but then view 65,000 Iraqi deaths as less provocative to inviting attacks than the weakness of the American political left.

Your attention appears to be wandering.

It is.

I have no idea what you are going on about here.

Victim mentality comes from being a victim not from being a victor. If you have not come across the idea of a 'victim mentality' in the debate regarding radicalisation- then disregard this point or do some research.

[Inquartata]

To what do you attribute the lack of attacks in the US in the first 3-4 years after 9/11, prior to public opinion turning against the war in Iraq?

My guess? The fact that it were put into disarray by the loss of its base in Aghanistan and its Taliban patron, by the killing and capture of many of its most experienced operational planners ad leaders, by the intelligence yielded up by those captured, by the loss of financial resources as donor organizations had accounts frozen and seized, and by the driving of the remainder of its command structure into hiding in remote areas.

The Afghanistan aftermath disrupted their organization, if nothing more. New leadership would have had to be trained, broken chains of cells reforged, new sources of funding obtained, etc.

For that matter, you never did say why the lack of attacks in the US since 9/11 indicates a calculated move in AQ's strategy more than the lack of attacks after the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 did.

Who knows?

But as I said, that they did X then does not say anything about what they may be doing now, under a completely different set of circumstances.

I'm not as confident that I can divine AQ's proposed tactics and operational capacity as you are--mostly because of it's nature.

Try to look at it strategically.

Al Zawahiri and others have demonstrated an understanding of the American tendency to short-sightedness and quick loss of enthusiasm for operations which don't conclude quickly---our intolerance for pain, in other words. They have pointed to the Vietnam experience as an exemplar. They know that delay is the deadliest form of denial. They know that as long as they don't lose in Iraq, they will win, because eventually public opinion will turn against a protracted, difficult struggle with no immediate victory in sight. They know that some of our opinion leaders will rail against the policy itself on moral and ethical grounds, that others will inveigh against it on practical and fiscal grounds; that families who lose sons and daughters in combat will become embittered; that the media will play up the failures and pass over the successes; etc. Public opinion will be turned against the unpleasant affair. And this in the final analysis will force political leadership to capitulate sooner or later.

As their top strategist, you know all this. You have seen it play out before. You see it playing out again. Why would you expend resources on an act which is not only unnecessary but possibly counterproductive? Why would you put a done deal at risk? Why take the chance of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

AQ is not a centralized, highly regimented organization in constant contact. It's a loose confederation of cells and other organizations, with very often conflicting views on how best to accomplish their goals--or even what those goals are.

This is the consensus view---from the outside. In truth we do not know for sure whether that view is accurate or correct. It is an educated guess at best...and our history of educated guessing is not the best.

Will AQ and other groups spin a US withdrawal as a victory by them--sure. Of course, they'll do that no matter what action the US takes in Iraq.

But if we leave a stable Iraq governed by a more or less democratic government it will only be the already convinced who will believe them. It will look like pretty hollow bravado to the rest of the world---even to the moderate Muslim world.

OTOH, if we leave as it seems we are going to leave, with the country in a shambles and the government ready to collapse, that it is a victory for the insurgents and their terrorist and radical-state accomplices will be obvious to all. Little will be needed in the way of spin.

[pigeonmeister]

My guess? The fact that it were put into disarray by the loss of its base in Aghanistan and its Taliban patron, by the killing and capture of many of its most experienced operational planners ad leaders, by the intelligence yielded up by those captured, by the loss of financial resources as donor organizations had accounts frozen and seized, and by the driving of the remainder of its command structure into hiding in remote areas. The Afghanistan aftermath disrupted their organization, if nothing more. New leadership would have had to be trained, broken chains of cells reforged, new sources of funding obtained, etc.

Clearly you are privy to more intelligence than George Tenet, who in his book expresses total surprise that the US has not been hit again. Obviously he, unlike you, is not privy to the AQ masterplan.

Even if that were so, and I don't believe that this can fully explain the total lack of attacks on US soil- what bearing does this have on a debate on justifying the Iraqi invasion as enhancing US national security?

All I've heard so far is arguments as to why leaving Iraq would make the US more vulnerable. Would you care to offer any good reasons, with this in mind, why you still think invading in the first place was a sensible strategy.

Who knows? But as I said, that they did X then does not say anything about what they may be doing now, under a completely different set of circumstances.

So you have no idea about AQ strategy 1993-2001, but your mastery of the 'circumstances' 2001-2006 means you can invite us to....

Try to look at it strategically.

Al Zawahiri and others have demonstrated an understanding of the American tendency to short-sightedness and quick loss of enthusiasm for operations which don't conclude quickly---our intolerance for pain, in other words. They have pointed to the Vietnam experience as an exemplar.

Vietnam doesn't really show an intolerance of pain- you endured it for 15+ years. It shows that there is such a thing as a conflict being so flawed conceptually, in an environment so profoundly misunderstood that, by any useful defintion, success is impossible. America has a long history of enduring large casualties...Civil War, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. Plus there isn't even a draft now, nor the conjunction with radical social and cultural change (seen in the 60's) so the 'pain' inflicted on the civilian population is not really that traumatic.

They know that delay is the deadliest form of denial. They know that as long as they don't lose in Iraq, they will win, because eventually public opinion will turn against a protracted, difficult struggle with no immediate victory in sight.

They also know that recruitment is up after the invasion of Iraq- why get rid of your best recruiting sergeant? I'd say they would be just as inclined to keep the US bogged down in Iraq and try and attack the US at the same time.

But the insight you assume they have isn't just unique to America. Would public opinion in any other country endure a protracted, difficult strategy with no immediate victory in sight? I would argue that AQ believe that America cannot defeat them in Iraq, regardless of how long they stay.

They know that some of our opinion leaders will rail against the policy itself on moral and ethical grounds,

Or perhaps even the strategic or military grounds being offered- notably by those 'cowardly lefty' military leaders such as General Wesley Clark; Major General Paul Eaton and Major General John Batiste.

The idea that only Americans can defeat America is just absurd- a tired argument last displayed by crew cutted baby boomers who thought hippy's were a threat to national security in the 1960's.

And this in the final analysis will force political leadership to capitulate sooner or later.

All your offering as a strategy is- 'keep dieing boys, cos if you don't, your kids will' Quite an effective, but profoundly unfair, argument- one that needs justifying beyond your own musing of what will and wont encourage this to actually happen.

As their top strategist, you know all this.

But your not their top strategist, so you dont.

You have seen it play out before. You see it playing out again. Why would you expend resources on an act which is not only unnecessary but possibly counterproductive?

You mean an act such as an attempt to kill Dick Cheney on a visit to Afghanistan a few weeks ago? Oh wait a minute....

But if we leave a stable Iraq governed by a more or less democratic government it will only be the already convinced who will believe them. It will look like pretty hollow bravado to the rest of the world---even to the moderate Muslim world.

I don't think you will find many who disagree that leaving Iraq as a stable democratic state would be best for America, Iraq and the region. It's how this will happen that we are arguing about. You have to demonstrate that this is achievable- simple as. Public Opinion is reacting to events in Iraq, not vice versa. Public Opinion and the 'Vietnam syndrome' is not proportional to casualty figures alone. American history shows that Americans will accept casualties, it's when they lose sight of a point when they wont have to do this public opinion reaches critical mass.

To avoid this the USG has to persuade its public that this conflict is winnable and not openended. Clearly it hasn't, and nor have you.

[jBirch]

You could, but with far less analogical accuracy.

There have been terrorist attacks in many countries since 9-11. There have been none in the United States. To what do you attribute that conspicuous quietude, the great competence of the Department of Homeland Security?

By the same logic, I present to you this rock, which keeps tigers away.

James.