We should have military assets where military assets make sense.

If Iraq accepts a military and/or commercial treaty with us that includes basing military assets than I am all for it. And, that will happen. It is currently in discussion.

Hey Norm,

The Taliban was ‘active’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan – not al Qaeda. al Qaeda’s leadership is probably holed up in NW Pakistan, but we can’t even be sure of that. However, I’ll give you that. It is most probable that whatever remains of al Qaeda’s leadership can be found squatting in some cave in NW Pakistan.

Engram from BackTalk would like to hear of all your examples of al Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan over the past five years. Feel free to provide such examples.

Richard Fernanez of the ‘Belmont Club’ connects why the remnants of al Qaeda are being ‘transferred’ to Pakistan now that they have been whipped in Iraq. Basically, the Middle East is the center of gravity for al Qaeda – not some landlocked and poor region that they were militarily purged from a number of years ago. Regardless, they have to go somewhere, eh. Where else.

So, let us now plus up Afghanistan and ‘encourage’ Pakistan to fight the slime in FATA. If Pakistan cannot be ‘encouraged’ let us use other tactics to push the turds downhill to where the Pakistanis will have to deal with their wayward children.

Once again your partisan lens is blurring your ability to see the political significance of the unfolding events regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, the success of the surge produced a political opportunity for Obama that you can’t see because you hate him and the Democrats so much.

When the surge was initially producing results, it presented a major problem for Obama because he had to explain why he wanted to withdraw our troops when the surge appeared to be producing results. It opened him up to the argument that it would be dangerous to elect him because it would lead to failure in Iraq.

The success of the surge has shifted this issue significantly. Now that Bush and the GOP are claiming the surge is victorious, they can’t explain why we shouldn’t be withdrawing our troops. The Iraqi government is now pushing for a timetable for withdrawal and indicated a tacit endorsement of Obama’s 16-month timeline. Al Maliki has now confirmed three times that he meant what he said on the 2010 withdrawal date, so still arguing that he was misquoted or mistranslated is silly. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/latest-clarification-al-m_n_114051.html. The US military leaders will be recommending the withdrawal of troops from Iraq shortly and the shift of military resources to Afghanistan. The US military is now saying we need to focus on Afghanistan to address the rising threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in that region. The funny part is that I’m sure Bush and McCain thought the withdrawal of troops shortly before the election would help McCain, but it may well end up hurting his cause.

Given these events, the military strategy in this region is looking more and more like what Obama has been advocating for some time – withdraw from Iraq and shift our focus to Afghanistan. The fear of failing in Iraq if we withdraw troops is no longer a key issue because everyone seems to be agreeing that Iraq is now stable enough to begin withdrawing troops. The GOP fear card that electing Obama will led to failure in Iraq is becoming weaker and stale.

The only thing McCain and the GOP can now harp on his Obama’s bad judgment in assuming the Surge would not work. While that is a legitimate point, it is undercut by the fact that Obama can continue to argue that the decision to invade Iraq before we finished the job in Afghanistan and the disasterous initial post-occupation plan was bad judgment. While you may think the invasion was justified and are willing to overlook the lack of post-occupation planning and 2.5 years to correct it, the vast majority of the country does not agree. A debate over who exercised worse judgment on Iraq since 2003 is a much better position form Obama than explaining why we should abandon a strategy that appears to be producing results.

One thing is certain. If McCain loses his decided advantage on Iraq, this election is over. Obama is killing him on domestic issues and McCain’s only hope is to convince everyone that Obama would be a dnager to our country. If he loses that edge and Iraq becomes an increasingly less important issue, he has nothing left to focus his campaign on.

The man LIED. There is no civility required when the man lies to your face.

Yes, it is unsettling – it was meant to be. Being lied to is much more insulting that giving him a fun name.

AJStrata

Regardless of where al Qaeda’s fighters were in 1999, where have we found most of them in this, the current, millennium?

They are streaming back to NW Pakistan now. So, soon enough, these slugs will return to where you would have been watching them for the past five years.

When the turds flow downhill to some slum in Somalia will you still seek them in Afghanistan?

Fight them where you can find them.

If they show up in Afghanistan, kill them there.

If they show up in Iraq, kill them there.

If they show up in Pakistan, kill them there.

If they show up in Somalia, kill them there.

If they show up in California, kill them there.

Follow al-Qaeda (and for that matter the other Turd Farms of Hezbollah and Hamas) like the Romans followed Hannibal. Soon enough these turds will face the same music Hannibal faced – maybe even in the same locale. Will they choose to go out like Hannibal?

And, yes, we can now start drawing down troops in Iraq.

We Won.

But, guess what, we will have troops in Iraq for decades to come. Why station our military in Munich when they are needed somewhere else?

The problem with that strategy is that Americans are that dumb, and they get really irritated when someone like The Clueless One treats them as if they are that dumb.

Backlash coming.

you turned brain off years ago dude.

Nothing before Light matters…

Darkness before Light…

LightBringer sayeth, I bringeth them Home.

And, it was good.