Mr. President:

Thank you for your kind invitation to provide an alternative way forward in Iraq issued in your Saturday, Jan. 13 radio broadcast.

It’s quite simple, sir:

1) Immediately cease all ground and air combat operations in Iraq except those required for force protectiion.

2) Instruct the Department of State to immediately contact leaders of the various factions in Iraq to set up face-to-face negotiations. Objectives: a) cease fire; b) mutually agreed restructuring of the Iraqi government; etc.

3) Send special envoys to interested nations in the region to invite their participation in negotiations.

4) Instruct the Department of Defense to immediately begin switching the role of US forces in Iraq from combat to Civil Affairs.

Thank you for your kind attention. Any questions, I’m always at your disposal.

Sincerely,

As for the “time machine” solution, I think it might even be better to see 10 years from now into the future and see if there was any relevancy to this administration’s decisions that have been taking place these 6 years till today. Then we save that state in reality for reference, then go back in time 7 years from now and rig the 2000 election for Gore’s sake (yes, I did say “rig for Gore’s sake” because that is what it would take to have elected him….the votes in Florida were recounted twice and legitimate people), and see what would have been and how Gore’s policies would have worked in rebuttal to the 9/11 attack. He may have followed in his predecessor’s footsteps and did nothing, or he may have manned up and put our military to work and put the enemy on the defense.

Since a time machine cannot be built….yet, here would have been my solution from the beginning directly after the attack:
1.) Immediately send aid to help the victims in our country within my power.
2.)Followed the laws and not allow any discrimination to any Indian-Arabian profiles and let them leave this country.
3.)Work on changing those current laws and restrictions that have disabled the authorities to act on our intelligence on these terrorists that have been able to leave this country because of.
4.)Once changes have been made, set up investigations and surveillance in this country as well as the enemy’s location.
5.)Send our military to take out any country that is harboring or claiming “safe-haven” for the terrorists. *** The alternative action would be to not send the military but rather several bombers loaded with nuclear weapons of mass destruction to eliminate any hint of humanity in the countries known to hold the bases for the terrorists in the middle-east countries. Even though that would be very effective, a commander with the love for humanity and hope for peace would do the primary action in this step 5.
6.)Keep confidential information regarding our military intelligence from the media and make up different stories to disclose to the media to confuse the enemy who are using the media as a branch of their intelligence.
7.) Stay focused on the assault and ignore the protesters who (still) do not want to see that not every country wants to live peacefully and they would strike at us even if we were to lay down our arms and embrace them (it is in their culture and religion).
8.)Once most military engagements have been resolved, start rebuilding and protecting any country that has had a removal of government by allowing the common people to vote and not leaving to allow the strong arm of a radical sect take control to return attack in the future.
9.)Tell the military to give false deadlines for the media to confuse the enemy and help expose the terrorists for their removal, then disregard those deadlines and strike even harder after.
10.) Stay as long as it takes to help the rebuilding and un-brainwashing of a country and culture that has so longed to kill us in the past (it works, just look at Germany and the Jews today and compare that with about 65 years ago).
11.) Keep the enemy on the defense.
12.) Keep the surveillance in America in case of future plans of attacks within our country.
13.) Set up 3 secret bases in Iraq for the easy deployment and reinforcement for possible future wars against other enemy countries that have sworn to kill western civilization.
14.) Fully man and stock these secret bases and do not tell Iraq or our media about these secret bases.
15.) Once our efforts have been sufficient in the rebuilding of Iraq, instruct the Department of Defense to immediately begin switching the role of US forces in Iraq from combat to Civil Affairs only as a facade to divert the enemies attention from the fully stocked and manned secret bases.
16.) Set up peace treaties with Iraq without the United Nations being involved in the treaty.
17.) Claim victory for peace and have a huge celebration for the media and the enemy in hiding to see.
18.) If the enemy leaves from their hiding to get into formation to strike after everything has calmed down, we strike with the fullest of our wrath on them with special elite forces and weapons from 1 of our secret bases.
19.) If Iraq complains about any treaty laws being broken, we would show them that the terrorists were using their country for hiding and as a safe-haven. Therefore making the treaty null and void by their terrorists’ actions.
20.) If the United Nations complains about any treaty laws between the US and Iraq being broken, I would remind them that they were not involved in this treaty and have no say in it.
21.) Once threat has been reduced to a very high satisfactory level, publicly allow the removal of that 1 secret base that attacked previously, claiming and giving false proof that there are no other bases in that country.
22.) Keep the remainder of the secret bases fully stocked and most importantly, KEEP IT SECRET! This will allow easy attack and reinforcement for war against other countries that might attack us from that continent or neighboring continents (ie, N. Korea, China, and/or Iran).

Do not get me wrong or mis read me. I, too, want a peacefully world, however, we cannot expect us to believe that our world can be totally in peace when our own city of Omaha is not in total peace (ie, North Omaha violence that you see often in the news). This is why we have the right to carry guns, because without that right, criminals would be the only ones carrying and using them against the peaceful law abiding citizens.
One of the most important things that this war will do, is it will show the world that we will stop at nothing to bring down terrorists who attack us. So do not even think about attacking the US, and if you do, you will face the full power of our military and we will correct your harboring country so that they can better reject you than before.

If the generals said it would work, I’d be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the generals, the Iraqi government, and most of the troops on the ground don’t think it’s a good idea. In fact, it seems to be counterproductive to the goal of transferring more authority to the Iraqi government.

Even if it were true that none of us had offered an alternative, though, Bush has made it clear that he is the commander-in-chief, and that his decision is the only decision that matters.

My concern is this: even if it were true that the consequences of withdrawal would be disastrous, it would be equally true a year from now, two years from now, ten years from now. Setting a timeline for withdrawal of our troops isn’t “sending a bad signal,” it’s the only right signal to send! Show that our commitment is not open-ended. The only way to do that is have a date in place after which we would begin to draw down our presence in Iraq. “Phased redeployment” without a timetable will only serve to leave our troops stretched thinner without a clue how long they’ll be there.

So the key for Bush is: show us how, exactly, this strategy is going to help us in Iraq. What is your exit strategy, other than January 20, 2009?

However, I was giving my solution to the situation in Iraq. I was not talking about the credibility of the president nor defending it, because it is the media who tells the people how they should credit him. I have seen people lose credibility in Jesus Christ because of what other say about him, therefore with that logic –> everybody needs to find a different alternative to Christianity and throw Jesus Christ out all together from our books. Of course, this analogy is a bit of an extreme example, but it does show the mindset of a person who follows the discredits by the media against a person or group.

You also bring up a great point, Bush “is” the commander-in-chief and his decision “is” the only decision that matters. I know that stings to think about it, but it is through decisive “actions” that produce results. It is not waiting for approval of the high majority of a panel of leaders or its own citizens before taking action and the greatest of the histories leaders know this. That is why non-decisive action and waiting for approval had pressured a president to not-fully send military forces to Vietnam from the beginning of the war and later had them withdraw only to come home to people who spat on the soldiers who did what they were told.

This is why the people that would rather see Bush fail because he is not a democrat, are not agreeing with each other about the issue and are seeing future ramifications if they were to disengage military from Iraq. This is why they are now being protested and shouted down by the same people who voted for them to stop the war. This is how I see their reasoning:

1.) They use the media polls as a guide for finding what would be approved by the people so they could cater to that mindset to get voted into power.

2.) They now understand that this is not like the Vietnam war that they’ve been saying that it was. This is because:
a.the current actions have been decisive (unlike the Vietnam war).
b.there was an elimination of a known terrorist harboring and funding government (Iraq) who has sworn to kill Americans (unlike the Vietnam war).
c. have succeeded in making this war one of the least with American casualties in combat while proving to succeed in combat (unlike the Vietnam war).
d. have started rebuilding a society and culture away from its volatile pastime(unlike the Vietnam war).

3.) The only way that this can now turn into Vietnam war is to disengage from the enemy. However, this is what they said they would help.

Therefore, now that they are voted in and they are in power, if the president goes along with their demands for removal of troops, the blame would now not be on the president, but rather the people who pressured the president away from the initial decisive action.

An intelligent military would not have plans for exiting a war from the “beginning” like you said, because the engagements of war will never go as planned. If one were to plan an exit strategy from the beginning, the enemy would circumvent that plan or wait till the exiting of the US to reposition and strike again. Remember, we are facing an enemy that would be honored in a suicide bombing against not only the opposing military but also the people who do not believe in what they believe in (ie. bombing in cafe’s and train stations that are not associated with the US in this war).

The connection of Iraq and al-Qaeda has been apparent but not noted or fully acknowledged by the media. There are satellite images of a sector in Iraq that has had what looked like a 700 class jet fuselage that they would use to train. Also, it was known that Saddam would give money bonuses to the person’s family’s who would suicide bomb the US or our allies. There are more instances and examples that could be used in discussing this, however, what was stated was enough to Iraq’s link to terror.

As for the setting a timetable for the removal of troops for media and the enemy to see, it would be militarily unintelligent to actually have that a plan with action (unless as a diversion tactic to confuse the enemy like I mentioned before in my previous post).

These consequences for withdraw would not be equally true 1-20 years from now like you said, and I would think the way we handled the Germans in WW2 versus the way we handled North Korea in the Korean war and the current state of both countries versus the US speaks for itself (however, I think too much and actually needed to show this to you). Since we are dealing with the cowards of war who use terrorist actions as their military strategy, we as a peaceful society cannot disengage our own domestic surveillance program until the attackers are at a minimum and have no government to hide in as a safe haven.

You said that, “We saw from the very beginning that there was no exit strategy, no justification, no connection to al-Qaeda, and that war would completely destabilize the region.” However, I have explained that:
1. There should be no exit strategy from the beginning for military reasons.
2. The justification of Iraq was to take out a country who’s dictator wants us dead and harbors the terrorists who have the means to do so.
3. Connections to al-Qaeda are apparent but are being shielded from our eyes and ears by the media.
4. This war is in the process of rebuilding a nation that was hostile in a region that has been in a complete destabilized state before our American nation even existed.

At this point, it should be clear to most observers that this is not a conventional war. There will be no “victory” in the sense that most people think of it, because the enemy is not clearly defined, the goals are not clearly set. So, at the very least, this plan needs to clearly define what “victory” means.

I won’t touch the justification for the war. It was tenuous at best. We had Saddam contained for 10 years. He had no WMD. He had no connections to al-Qaeda or 9/11. This has been proven time and time again. The bipartisan 9/11 commission showed no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

The situation is such that a military solution only serves to aggravate the problem. We cannot continue to think of this in terms of a battlefield with clearly defined sides. There are not. We are policing a civil war, and the only solutions available to us are political in nature. We have to begin diplomatic relations in Iraq, and we cannot do so because neither the Sunnis, Shia, or Kurds trust us. We have to bring Iran and Syria to the table, but instead, we are deliberately provoking them.

Bush’s plan is, at best, continuing the same tactics that have failed us for the last 3 and a half years. At worst, it’s ramping up the violence at a time when we need to try and decrease it. A democracy cannot exist in the midst of a full-fledged civil war. Simply continuing the cycle of violence, as Bush proposes to do, will only make the situation worse, so that when we do withdraw our forces, his “nightmare scenario” may come true.

I believe that our presence on the ground in Iraq is only antagonizing. I believe that the reconstruction of Iraq was bungled from the beginning, giving contracts to American companies rather than jobs to Iraqi civilians. I believe that until we accept the fact that regional Arab powers, including both our allies and those who are not our allies, must come to the table, we cannot reach anything approaching an end to the bloodshed.

This has ceased to be a conventional war, and has become a peacekeeping mission. But the strategies have not changed to reflect these facts. And, because of that, our young men and women are getting killed in the crossfire.

You said it best that victory cannot be accomplished in a war that the enemy is undefined. Then why do you want the US military to claim victory and leave Iraq? Or is it that you want the US military to admit defeat and leave Iraq? Either way, if we exit or talk about exiting Iraq we set a waiting period for these terrorist to strike again.

Is the justification of the war tenuous? Shall I remind you that it took the majority of the US to allow us to go into this war in the first place? Most of the people you probably would vote for was in favor of the war when it was the popular (and right) thing to do, and yet the reasoning is flimsy to you? Or possibly the reason you wont “touch the justification” is because you cannot, and you only want to complain? This blog allows you to talk as long as you want and say what you fully want while reviewing your text when your done, and you still dont want to touch that? If I am wrong, please give me example and rational evidence so that I may correct my thoughts. As I said before, I want to discuss “what” is right, not “who” is right, so feel free to fully correct me.

We had saddam contained, true, however please remind yourself of that investigation process that took place to find the WMD. We couldn’t get into certain factories which gave time for saddam to hide, dismantle or dispose evidence that would suggest that he had completed WMD. This has been proven, however “glass is half empty” people want to focus on that we did not find completed WMD rather than saddam having the means and resources to make them. For instance, he used them before on the Kurds and would have love to use them on us.

Your say that, “A democracy cannot exist in the midst of a full-fledged civil war.” and that is true, but remember that a democracy can result from a civil war and I could give you a big example, the United States of America. I know this stings, but please remember that.

Time and time again people try to say that we should do treaties, sanctions, and other civilized processes to a society that is not civil and they regularly break the rules of engagment as a way of life. Why are you complaining that there is no clear way to define the enemy and yet try to define rules and negotiations for the enemy?
Nagotiations only work for civil opposing forces. Iraq is neither a standing society or an opposing force to the US anymore because of our current actions by our current president.

This has never been a conventional war so do not try to equate it as one. Shall we immediatly stop this war and let them regroup to strike us again, while sending the non effective negotiations and treaties that mean nothing to terrorists (ie, my right to carry guns bit from my first post)?

I will ask this last thing, then I have to go to work:
Why would someone rational claiming that this war is wrong because of the casualties on our side, but not give that same sanctity of life to unborn babies and yet call them a choice to be aborted?

I believe that we need to set a date at which we begin the withdrawal of our troops. Our commitment cannot be open ended. Sending more troops will only lead to more American casualties. In order to minimize the impact of our withdrawal, we need to bring the region to the table, work out a diplomatic solution. We need to turn over the control of Iraq to the Iraqis. Their government cannot stand up on its own if our military maintains an indefinite presence there. I outlined all of those points above. At the very least, the goals outlined in the Iraq Study Group report are a good starting point for a plan. And the President’s plan is the exact opposite of that report.

I think we need to realize that what exists today in Iraq is an occupation. You cannot “win” an occupation. The only way it ends is by transferring authority to the legitimate government of Iraq. And the only way that can happen is by drawing down our presence, not increasing it.

Do you dissagree that setting a date for withdrawl could set a date for rebutle and reorginazation for the terrorists? Even if you were to “begin” the withdrawal of our troops, that is a bad strategy and will result in more troops being casualties since their support is being dwindled as time goes by. These bombings and other terrorist actions are a result of our presence because this enemy knows that the media will recognize that before recognizing any progress that was made in our efforts. The enemy knows that the media controls the morale heartbeat of our American people, so they use it against us and the media helps them. Why else do you think that the media would hastly show the casualties and beheadings on TV while asking “Is Bush making progress in Iraq”, and yet when a movie with actors are protraying the 9/11 attack they complain and ask, “Is this too soon to show this after 9/11″?
It is because the first instance is discouraging to the war effort, and the second enforces our reasoning to be on the offence. Why else would so many conspiracy topics have popped up trying to disprove the al-Qaeda involvment in 9/11? It is because they cannot handle a Republican president being active against terror while their beloved Clinton wouldn’t take action…even after the 93′ attack.

That is why some people don’t want to touch the justification for this war. It is because they cannot handle it. Did you know that we still occupy Germany and have a fully functional base there? We still won in WW2 and still occupy Germany today.

Drawing down our presence would only increase casualties because it is still hostile over there. Decreasing presence will not stop the violence and hostility over there.

Our commintment “can” be as open ended to eliminate any remaining terrorist threat and securing a democracy in Iraq. Not only that, the terrorists “are” leaving their commitiment open-ended to later attack us (and I don’t think any sanctions or comming together in discussion would change the beliefs that they are willing and wanting to die for). Many are still refusing to see that, because they want to close their eyes to it.

The civil war that would take place over there is not a result of our being there, but rather different sects want to control its people and not haveing the people decide for themselves. It is a difference between them that they are privilaged to express now that Saddam is gone.

I think what you fail to realize is that we “won” against Iraq, and now we are doing the right thing by spreading democracy where it has never been before. The process is rough, but that is what it will take and the world is safer because of that.

An open-ended commitment by the United States offers the Iraqis no incentive to stand up and take responsibility for their own security. At some point, they have to take over. We cannot be the de facto Iraqi army.

You fail to realize, quite simply, that Saddam Hussein posed absolutely no real, physical threat to the United States. We had him contained. He was no threat. The United States had long ago neutralized Saddam Hussein’s power. Independent investigations have confirmed what most of us knew was true before the war: Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, there were no ties to al-Qaeda. These are hard, indisputable facts. They are not creations of the media. They are not liberal propaganda. They are facts. And if you cannot accept them, then you are simply detached from reality.

Secondly, you and others are wrong about there not being any weapons of mass distruction. Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. The effects of this are great, yet the media does not want you to know this. That goes again with my point how they only want to show the negetives and do anything and protect any documents away from the population that would at all support Bush.

True, we had him contained, but he was still harboring terrorists. Why can’t you see the threat in that? Why do you close your eyes to it? For once, tell me if this in itelf is or is not a threat.
If you say it is not a threat, then you are the one detached from reality, and if you say it is a threat, then why are you arguing this point?

So you and others like you are wrong about the creations of WMD, you’re wrong about there not being liberal propaganda that is spread around like it is FACT, and most importantly, you’re wrong about Saddam not being a threat!

If you would have paid attention to what I said, I said that democracy can be the result of a civil war. By being the “result” of a civil was means that at the end of that conflict, when everything settles, you can have democracy. GET THIS STRAIGHT AND DO NOT MIS QUOTE ME!

I’ve given you ties to al-Qaeda and Iraq, I’ve given you ties to WMD’s but you still won’t understand the main reason why Saddam was a threat.

HARBORING TERRORISTS MAKES YOU A THREAT.

And, yes, as a matter of fact, they did come to start blowing us up because we were there. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and his power would have been threatened by al-Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission found no evidence that Hussein had any links to al-Qaeda, and that in fact, bin Laden was an enemy of Saddam. You’ve provided me no actual, concrete evidence to make me believe that the word of two independent commissions tasked by the U.S. Government is 100% completely false. The burden of proof is on you, here. Give me a citation, other than the statements of men who make a living in lies, and I’ll hear you out. Since I know that you have none, I’ll continue to shoot down your arguments.

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States. Not in any way that would be worth the lives of more than 3,000 Americans. Period.

And this is what you send me to dispute the case that Saddam has no WMD or was not researching it? Would these ballistic missiles that exceed restrictions possibly contain anything that might cause mass distruction? Please open your eyes to this.
Have you read the 9/11 commission report?
Here is some evidence that proves that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda:
1.) “With al Qaeda as its foundation, bin Laden sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudia Arabia, and the Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Erirrea… With a Multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for the terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.” - 9/11 COMMISSION STAFF STATEMENT # 15, OVERVIEW OF THE ENEMY, PAGE 3.

2.) “Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime … The Sudanese [government] … arranged for contact between Iraq and al-Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons…” - 9/11 COMMISSION STAFF STATEMENT # 15, PAGE 5.

Well, let’s see what Colin Powell said previously at a statement to the UN, “Zarqawi … traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months … During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al qaeda affiliates … coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network … [in 2002] an al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, ‘good’”

We can also read from the Wall Street Journal, SEPT. 22, 2003,
“One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for ‘The Toronto Star’ and London’s ‘Sunday Telegraph’. The February 19, 1998 memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden’s name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of ‘the weekly Standard’, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman al Zawahiri $300,000.”

I understand your frustration, Dave. However, try to open your eyes to this and read these citations for yourself. It also helps to know why these are not publicly disclosed to the public by the current media. As I stated before to others, the media cannot be fully trusted at a glance and you have to look past the glossy facade and dig deep to find answers that those people do not want you to find.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States because of his proven and quoted connections with al Qaeda in the 9/11 commission report. They also celebrated when the US was attacked on 9/11. Do you not remember any of this?

These are quotes, this should be the concrete evidence that you were looking for….unless you were not looking for it at all, but rather wanting to argue and mis represent facts.

SG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

* ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.
* According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.
* If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.
* Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use—or even the threat of use—of WMD after 1991, according to ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion.

Based on the statements of former senior officers, the Iraqi military—including the RG—allegedly had no plans for employing WMD, had not practiced tactical use of WMD since 1991, had no available stockpiles of WMD, had not deployed any WMD to tactical units, and had no special infrastructure in place for handling WMD.

The evidence you cite, as noted in the report, suggests that Saddam wished to return to WMD programs after sanctions were lifted. The important thing to note is that there were no stockpiles of WMDs, and the sanctions against Iraq were working!

Is there any evidence in those quotes you lifted?

Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.6

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

But I’d like to point out that the idea you can “flush out terrorists” through any means, especially a war, is absolutley rediculous. There are not a finite number of people who hate or who are can be convinced to hate and to fight.

The war in Iraq, by all accounts, has created more terrorists. As Ireland shows us, you can’t defeat an insurgency, rebellion, or rebels using terrorist tactics by killing them. Palestine shows the same thing. Diplomacy, and the lifting of the economic and social conditions that lead to people ripe for ‘brainwashing’ by terrorists, those are the only ways to end the violence. And is Northern Ireland finally violence-free? No. Which shows how long this kind of thing can take. But the major crucial step was when the broad public sentiment finally moved away from the IRA. That only happened when the war ended. Similarly, in Iraq, the longer the American forces are there, the more public symapathy will be with Al Quida and other groups like them, the more new recruits they’ll have, and the longer it will be until the situation can be defused and the people of Iraq will be able to move to accept and act out for peace.