US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

So nothing to do with knocking those tall buildings down in NYC then Ican, and what was that other reason...hard to recall now...oh yes something called Weapons of Mass Destruction. What was that all about? Yes I remember now. Saddam Hussein threatened to launch a Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we didnt want that, so we saved the world from destruction by bringing democracy to Iraq and putting Sheik Osama bin Laden under house arrest.

...
When you wish to respond to the people responsible for attacking your country, you go after those people - not some madman that had nothing to do with the event.
...

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate Al Qaeda training camps in their midst.

The attacks on September 11 kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

The night of 9/20, the President Bush broadcast to the nation and to a joint session of the Congress that: our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them; that it is civilization’s fight to punish this radical network; and that we ask every nation to join us in this fight.

On 10/25, the pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive -- formally signed on October 25, after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun -- included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex. The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."

No. You go after al Qaida where they primarily live and operate, and destroy them. If they survive, and they did survive, they will have the opportunity to expand their operations. Without the leadership, it becomes very dificult to sustain any kind of terrorist group.

Yes! Because we didn't destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan, al Qaeda fled to Iraq December 2001 and subsequently expanded their operations in Iraq. At the time of our invasion of Iraq March 2003, al Qaeda was growing rapidly in Iraq.

This president and administration took their eye off the ball, and now we are paying heavily for their incompetence.

Yes! "Now we are paying heavily for their incompetence": Those damn fallible fools.

... You may continue your rhetoric about "malignancy" all you want, but people aleady have realized that our administration is the worst malignancy that are causing untold agony and hardship at home.

Double post

Don't Give Up on Iraq Yet
By David Ignatius
Washington Post
Sunday, October 2, 2005; Page B07

BAGHDAD -- Ask the generals and colonels who are running the war in Iraq what really worries them, and it's rarely a military problem. "We haven't lost a platoon in combat! We haven't lost a skirmish!" explodes one general when describing a recent poll that reported a majority of Americans think we are losing the war.

The problems that vex the military here are political -- above all, the difficulty of shaping an effective Iraqi government that can unite Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. That has been the real challenge since U.S. troops reached Baghdad in April 2003, and it's one that all of America's military and economic power hasn't yet been able to crack. Our vast resources haven't subdued the molten passions of what Winston Churchill in 1922 called the "ungrateful volcano" of Iraq.

Because the decisive battles here are political, not military, many officers feel the recurring debate in Washington over the proper troop levels in Iraq misses the point. "We've been pounding this with a military hammer, but we all agree that the solution will be political," says one infantry colonel on the front lines.

So what is the way forward in Iraq? I come to the question with a good deal of baggage. I thought the war made sense three years ago, not because of the putative weapons of mass destruction or the al Qaeda threat but because I hoped that toppling the Arab world's most repressive regime could open the door to positive change in the region. I still believe that, but I shudder at the administration's postwar mistakes and at the human cost of the war. And I sense that both Americans and Iraqis are running out of patience. We are at a crucial decision point, so here is what I think:

The right way forward now is exactly what it was in April 2003. The United States must foster a modern, secular Iraqi government that can bring together Sunnis and Shiites and, under that umbrella of national reconciliation, stabilize the country. Above all, that means finding a way to engage the people who feel most left out of the new Iraq -- the Sunni minority that held power under Saddam Hussein and now feels disenfranchised.

Here's how Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, who oversees the war, puts it, expressing what he says is a "personal" opinion: "You must have a viable Sunni engagement plan that distinguishes between people who participated in the old regime because they had no choice and those who committed crimes against their people." That means the current "de-Baathification" rules must be eased so that they aren't a score-settling mechanism for the newly ascendant Shiite majority.

Unfortunately, Iraq's first elected government, under Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, has reinforced the sectarian tensions rather than the spirit of reconciliation. Most Sunnis boycotted the Jan. 30 election that brought this government to power; the decisive political figure was Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who told Shiites it would be sinful not to vote for Najaf's cleric-dominated list. Jafari's government has been weak and inefficient -- and it produced a draft constitution that reassured Shiite mullahs and Kurdish warlords but left Sunnis out in the cold.

Some analysts argue that the constitution is so flawed that this month's referendum to approve it should be delayed. I disagree; like most military officers I talked to here, I see the constitution as a work in progress. The current version is far from perfect, but it can be amended and adapted by a future government. As Abizaid says, "It's a workable document from which good things can flow."

Actually, I don't think it matters all that much whether the constitution is ratified. What's crucial is that Sunnis turn out to vote Oct. 15 and that they come back to the polls at year's end, when a new government will be elected. There are encouraging signs that's going to happen, with Sunni clerics now urging people to register. Every commander
I talked with said Sunni registration is up. That signals a recognition that Iraq's future will be shaped by ballots, not suicide bombers.

The real political milestone is the December balloting to elect a new, permanent government. The good news for people who want to see a secular Iraq is that the Sistani-backed clerical list is almost certain to get fewer votes than it did in the Jan. 30 balloting. And possibly, just possibly, enough Sunnis, Kurds and secular Shiites will vote for alternative lists to allow a new ruling coalition of secular parties, perhaps allied with religious ones, which might link arms across the Shiite-Sunni divide. Such a coalition might be headed by a secular Shiite politician, such as the wily Ahmed Chalabi or former prime minister Ayad Allawi.

Maybe I'm dreaming in imagining that a stable, secular government can still emerge. But the point is that we're finally approaching crunchtime. If the next six months don't produce something like the outcome I have described, there is every likelihood that Iraq will descend into the civil war that has been looming for two years.

What I cannot understand is the call for a quick exit from Iraq, before we've given the December elections and a permanent government a chance. Make no mistake, we are looking over the lip of Churchill's volcano, and there is a chance that -- if domestic political pressure for withdrawal carries the day -- the United States could suffer a major defeat in Iraq that would reverberate for a generation. We may fail in Iraq, but let's not rush it.