Q: What about Arabs coming in from other countries?

A: Well, it seems to me -- and the weight of evidence indicates -- that Arab Islamists have fully joined the Iraqi resistance in Iraq ... Iraqi is gradually but steadily replacing Afghanistan and Bosnia as a magnet for many Jihadi recruits to confront the forces of the so-called "unbelief". And it seems to me that anti-American forces must now feel that US forces are very vulnerable in Iraq and could be bogged down in a prolonged guerilla war. If this particular resistance continues I feel you're going to have many more Jihadi fighters joining the Jihad in Iraq against the American forces.

(9/2 NPR Interview with Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East and international affairs professor at Sarah Lawrence College. Gerges' bias is that this is a bad thing. YMMV. via defective yeti)

In the meantime, who still thinks America can force democracy on Iraq? Some foolishly thought we would just kick Saddam out and install a democratic government. They were not listening to the generals who were predicting 200,000 troops for up to 5 years. Presently the US is seeking an exit strategy because none existed when we started this fiasco - a top management failure. And now Iraq is becoming a quagmire. How many more died today trying to force a democracy where the people don't want it.

There ought to be a way to use this "magnet" effect... draw 'em in and then shoot 'em or something.

I noticed in Afghanistan, then again in Iraq, We didn't seem to do anything to secure the borders. In Afghanistan the got out and Iraq they're getting in.
With all the spy crap we have, we should at least know what's moving, even at night.
Maybe it's a trick to draw all the radicals in and nuke 'em?

Rumsfeld: "Are you an assassin?
Powell: "I’m a soldier."
Rumsfeld: "You’re neither. You’re an errand boy sent by the Joint Chiefs to collect the bill."
Rumsfeld: "They said my methods are insane. Do you think my methods are insane?"
Powell: "Frankly sir, I don't see any method..."

Today? None. No US military deaths today.

Oh, you posted that on the 6th. No deaths that day either.

There was a day in between - yesterday. No deaths.

There have been none, in fact, since September 1.

Hmm. I noticed the slowdown in news about it, hadn't realized it was an actual slowdown in deaths. Hopefully this means the local resistance (I won't call them terrorists if they're shooting at occupiers; sorry) and its allies are running out of steam. Rather than just saving up for something big.

I don't understand why the media made such a big deal out of finding 1 RPG launcher. I'll bet there's hundreds, maybe more, of those things floating around.

Yes, yes...we know you have one at your place, Bruce.

I noticed that Al Jazeera speculated a reason for the attack on the Iraq that is very similar to what Undertoad mentioned on the previous page. Al Jazeera delivered the idea differently: they proposed that the Bush Administration may have feared an alliance between Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Unfortunately, the People in Charge should have thought of the chessboard analogy that Undertoad cited. Taking the center is very good strategy, but for a hundred years Chess players have known that attacking the center can be just as good.

(By the way, the Al Jazeera article illustrated some of the best reasons for attacking Iraq that I've heard of thus far. Potentially withdrawing from Saudi Arabia is a new idea to me, and it sounds appealing.)

NO, NO, NO. Don't be starting that kind of shit. Dave's company monitors these posts (among other things) for clues like that. The black helicopters are circling already.:eek:

You lost me on that "can be just as good" part. Tor.

I read we were building up other bases, in anticipation of pulling out of Saudi Arabia, before the war. I think we are worried about the royal family losing control and being caught off guard like we were in Iran.
Or we feel our presence is destabilizing the royal family.