Readers’ Responses to Our Question (45)

Tom Wonacott,

The scenario you put forward is basically what I call complete chaos in the Middle East and possibly the beginning of a new world conflict. The way we are casually taking about it while the world is rushing towards it makes me think we are all gone mad.

I believe the quickest way to calm the nerves is to have another look at your item 2 of the Israeli point of view. A nuclear arms race does not have to be the outcome and a nuclear armed Iran (if that is the case) can be made feeling even more unsafe than before. Simply, Israel and US can sign a protocol, with or without the consent of other ME countries, stating that any nuclear attack by Iran or one of her proxies anywhere in the world will result in a massive and decisive nuclear retaliation by the signatories. By itself, this would be a better deterrent or guaranty than any military attack that we both agree will have unpredictable consequences. All the effort and pressure should be concentrated on facilitating a regime change in Iran and calming the political air over the ME by working toward a sustainable peace agreement between Arabs and Israelis. That is the only sane approach toward solving these problems. An attack by US and Israel (it does not matter who sits in the cockpit) will solidify Iranian people behind a regime that at this point is despised by most of them. It may delay the retaliation but guarantees it. That is why I see the attack as complete madness.

Salamon

My daughter took my computer, so I don’t have time to answer your post this morning in greater detail. I am sure you can relate.

Two quick points:

1. I am a capitalist. One only needs to look at the rise of China to see the effectiveness of capitalism. Unfortunately, the more that Democracies mature, the more they tend to become more socialistic. Some socialism is good (compassionate capitalism), but moving toward the European model scares me. Redistribution of capital has created a welfare state in Europe leading to high unemployment, welfare dependency - especially for immigrants that don’t assimilate into European society, disincentives for new business ventures etc. The burden of the welfare state has left Europe literally “defenseless” and dependent on US power. Sarkozy wants to establish a European defense department. Yea, right. That’s a joke.

The election of Obama - who has the most liberal voting record in the senate - can only lead us in the direction of redistribution of wealth and the creation of a welfare state similar to Europe (not overnight of course). You know the routine: tax the windfall profits of the oil companies, Corporations are bad, tax the rich, create a government health care program because the government is really efficient with our money etc. Government knows best.

2. I can envision similar problems in foreign policy, and again, worse than what Bush produced (in the long run).

The election of Obama would not necessarily lead to a foreign policy disaster because he surely would surround himself with good people, and Democrats in the past have proven to be aggressive which is necessary in my opinion.

Got to go. Good hearing from you.

Shiveh

The New York Times offers nothing new and states the obvious. Just more negotiations, increased pressure on Iran with new sanctions - especially from the do nothing Europeans - and the offer of a grand deal by the US (more carrots) whatever that means. This has been going on for five long years.

Of course settling the issue peacefully is the best alternative, but the New York Times never really addresses the ramifications of a nuclear Iran nor does the Times say that the world is better off with a nuclear Iran than going to war - only that a war would be a disaster. I think that is significant.

"The mullah’s regime in Iran can be called the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East but will an attack correct this or make it worse?"

A great question. I am convinced Bush will not be the one to attack (that probably guarantees that he will). He has fallen way short of his neoconservative label in his second term - no doubt from the huge criticism leveled at him from the chaos created in Iraq. The Bush administration has not been able to convince the Europeans to step up the sanctions against Iran. Carrots, negotiations and weak sanctions have all failed. The recent intelligence report undercut the hard-line Bush rhetoric.

In addition, the gains in Iraq would probably be lost. More than likely Iran has a significant amount of missiles aimed at US troops in Iraq so there is great risk to US troops. The escalation would lead to a horrific bombing of Iran.

Israel already risked a war with Syria to stop their nuclear program. That was a huge statement by Israel regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The ramifications of bombing Iran would seem to be very large especially for Iran and Israel. I don’t mind speculating so here are some of the problems I foresee (I liked your scenario from your previous post):

1. Interruption of oil supply to the world and the subsequent rise of gas prices to new record levels. This could potentially bring other powers into the conflict because oil is the lifeblood of the planet.

2. Achmidinijad and Hizbollah’s leader Nasrallah are very popular leaders in the Middle East because they have stood up to the US and have not accepted the legitimacy of Israel despite the offer of the Arab League. Their popularity will only increase. Achmidinijad will solidify his position as President, but in my opinion, its already in no danger anyway. Arab (Muslims in general) anger will increase.

3. A regional conflict could break out with Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran all attacking Israel possibly bringing the US into the war. It seems unlikely to me that the Syrian army will get involved, but more than likely they will provide support to her proxies - Hamas and Hizbollah IF they attack Israel. Of course, that would lead to another bombing of Lebanon as well. Iraq could also collapse into chaos from a Shiite uprising.

4. Without regime change, bombing Iran only stalls but does not end Iran’s nuclear program. Israel will take a massive missile attack from Iran (possibly Hizbollah as well) so expect Israel to bomb not only nuclear facilities but all facets of Iranian weapons capability and infrastructure. The war could go on for a significant amount of time.

From the Israeli point of view:

1. In general, Arab governments will support the bombing in an unofficial capacity. Arab governments support reducing Iran’s regional rise in regional power, and they fear Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Arab people, however, will support Iran. As stated above, Arab anger will rise. This could lead to serious problems for Arab regimes if they are seen as supporting Israel.

2. A nuclear Iran will embolden Iran’s proxies (including Syria) under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. Under these conditions, the chances of a nuclear confrontation between Iran and Israel will increase. Israel has stated her right to a nuclear first strike in self defense.

3. A nuclear Iran could start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The largest increase will be Israel which will be supplied by the US, but Arab countries will also build nuclear weapons to counter Iran.

4. A nuclear Iran means the future is NOW for Israel so bombing Iran stalls a nuclear Iran until the future. Arab and Persian anger will increase in the short term, but long term effects of going to war with Iran are unknown (to answer your question). Nuclear weapons are the greatest danger to Israel. Israel’s size makes them vulnerable to literally being “wiped off the map”.

5. Israel can depend on US support.

I think, based on the comments here, it's time to rethink how we see and treat Congressional and Senatorial and even local races. Today the Republican's blocked a vote on the obscenely excessive oil profits. I spent 15 minutes on thw web and discovered that oil cpmapnies had contributed enormous amounts of money to the very Republican's (and potential presidential candidates) who blocked this legislation:

John McCain $490,126
Mitt Romney $444,244
John Cornyn $383,750
James Inhofe $153,300
Pete Domenici $153,000
Mitch McConnell $132,850
Lamar Alexander $83,000

Over in the House:
Joe Barton $109,341
Michael Conaway $90,850
Roy Blunt $85,900
Todd Tiahrt $77,400
Kay Granger $72,400

Now, common wisdom is that Senate and COnressional races are local affairs. I wonder, however, if we and the Democrats made them national. You know, run periodic Hall Of Shame lists, unscrolling like a Star Wars story lead in, on our television screens? The Republican Party has become nothing so much as a criminal syndicate, aided and abetted by the media publishing their press releases and allowing them to hide behond that conventional wisdom. I think it's time to make these corporate controlled hacks pay for their mistreatment of the voters, make $5 a gallon gas, outsourced jobs, the outright lies about Iraq and our casulties there, about the failure of their foreign policy, about their cooperation with corporate fraud, their too cozy relationship with banks and credit firms and data warehouses, all of it, make it a national issue. Run these obscure Texas representatives faces across our television screens five or six times a day, do a steady drumbeat of their money and where it comes from, drive in the fact that CHeney as Vice President is *still* on the payroll of Halliburton, that John McCain and other Republican's in the U.S. Senate have been literally paid off by oil companies to block legislation looking into their price fixing. Make the utter criminality of Wall Street, of banks, of corporations, of certain "representatives" and Presidential wannabees, of even the governments of Chian and India (who, along with and even in alliance with Wall Street commodity traders, have been speculating in oil futures, driving the cost up for the U.S. market), make it a NATIONAL campaign issue. This would certainly cost the Republican's dearly and would lead to a blowout of McCain, but it might just lead to a cleaner Washington, one that actually represents th interests of the Amercian people.

Tom,

Interesting perspective on the upcoming election. I think we both agree both candidates have problems that are unlikely to be overcome. McCain obviously has the diastrous Bush legacy to follow and that's a huge anchor around his neck. Obama is classically inexperienced for the position although that has made little difference in the past to electability. Former Governor's have been a very mixed bag. I deem Bush terrible, maybe the worst ever. Carter ineffective. Clinton was a man of spectacular successes as well as spectacular failures. Reagan was by far the most solid. If my memory serves me correct John Kennedy was the last sitting Senator to beocme president. Anyway, the point to this is I'm not sure experience is that important based on our history. If anything Obama's lack of experience gives him a shorter record to criticize.

My father was fond of saying the escalation of the war in Vietnam was his fault. A friend told him if he voted for Goldwater in 64 there would be 500K troops in Vietnam. Well he voted for Goldwater and sure enough a short time later there were 500K troops in Vietnam. On a more serious note I bring Johnsom up becuase of the A-bomb ad he ran. That ad was so misleading it was ridiculous and designed to make the American public believe Goldwater was a dangerous man. It was pure slime in the truist sense of the word.

The problem with attacking character is it comes back to haunt you. We still remember the A-bomb ad. With republicans attacking character we all remember sexually explicit messages to male pages, soliciting sex in airport bathrooms, extr-martial affairs at the same time you're voting to impeach Clinton, etc., etc., etc. That's the problem. Attacking character, whether done by a republican or democrat usually comes back to look like the worst type of hypocrasy. However, if you don't have the issues on your side what choice do you have?

Frankly, when this character assasination begins with Obama I certainly hope an independent democratic PAC (if there is such a thing) starts putting out the message that McCain was brainwashed when he was a POW and is really a commie mole and thus unfit for the office of the presidency. Sound ludicrous? Well it isn't anymore ludicrous then Obama is a Muslim symphatizer or some whacked out liberal.

The Post as well as other newspapers have written some great articles lately on how Barrack beat Hillary Clinton. Frankly, the more I read about it the more impressed I am with Barrack. In essence he out politiced the candidate that was supposed to be immune from any such strategy. His win was impressive. He ended up building a bigger, better and more well thought machine then Hillary and nobody thought that a possibility a short year ago. He has proven to be a force to be reckoned with and slime aside I think his organizational skills, his charisma, oratory, dissatisfaction with the status quo make him a republican's nightmare. Make no mistake about the democratic party will unite behind his candidacy to put a democrat back in the oval office.

Assuming he does win will he be any good? Ah, that's a very different question which only has one answer. We don't know. The same can be said about McCain. Should he win will he be any good? We don't know that either. The only thing I'm relatively sure of is no matter which of these two gentlemen wins either will be head and shoulders better then the outgoing administration.

TOM W:

I do not have an opinion on the effectiveness of the surge. I only remarked on the uselessness of the spin regaarding AQ.

The most important aspects for anyone running as President of USA, in my opinion, are as follows:
1., great intelligence [by and large all current candidates qualifried]
2, Ability to select the best persons as your central power group, Barack has it, Hillary did not, and MaxXain is most questionable on this issue - Bush did not qualify on this aspect, see the mess in USA.
3., a platform appealing to the electorate, Bush promised compasssion, unfortunately he restricted this to the super rich, the misplaced ideology of AIPAC - note this is not in the interest of most Israeli citizens as per Haaretz; and to wrecking the economics of foreign lands - Afganistan, Somalia, Iraq with untold number of dead and injured, including USA citizens. MacCain's platfrom is similar to Bush, Hillary was too busy triangulating til the events in Ohio, Pennsylkvania etc - by then too late. Obama has caught the attention of the little people, those who are most often disregarded by power politics [K-street et al].
3., experience is not nescessary, see Mr Lincoln, Mr Eisenhower [the most farseeing President, who was aware of the danger of Military Industrial Complex fr the well being of the citizens] and many more.

What is not important is what acuiantences a person had 10 or more years ago, as long as this did not involve the person in criminal acts. With respect to Pastor Wright, most of his speeches -and I read/listended some; are not too different form the USA icon. Dr. King. In fact, it resembles the liberation Theology preacticed by most Christian missionaries all over South Americe for a number of years. The idieas might not appeal to laissez faire capitalists, but is closer to the teaching of the Bible?Thalmud than the BS practiced by the so called Democracies [which do their best to disregard the poor].

Finally, in my opinion, it is just as important who ges elected to Congress, to Suprem Court, as the selection of the President, for the basic tenet of SEPARATION OF POWERS, limits the Chief Executive in many ways [discounting the disasterous concentration of power in Bush Presidency, due to REPUBLICAN POWER SHARE IN SENATE. Were ther only 39 Republican Senators, Bush, Chaney would have been impeached.
I am sure you read my comments on USA Supreme Court, with respect to the failings of Broiwn Vs. Topeka, whose effect 40 odd yearts ater is still a disfunctional k-12 education system with 30-40% dropout rate by age 18/19.

You are right Obama will be the President,how effective, Who knows, how effective new congress? who knows. We all know it could not be much worse then the last few years.

The greatest problems will be economic. especially due to the againg population and entitlements vs the un godly credit problems of the Governments and individuals [as depcted by the Comptroller General of the USA a few m onths ago]. The limitation of certain commodities, globa warming are just the jam for the economic sandwich.

I hope that things will turn out for the USA/World citizens, for the readujment to new physical/economic realities might not be fun

Tom Wonacott,

Thank you for a level headed response. I try to be short this time.

The reason behind my frustration is the dangerously chaotic state of affairs that will exist in the Middle East in particular and the world in general in case of an attack on Iran by US or Israel. Regardless of your views on Iran, what do you think about the aftermath of the attack? In the long run, will that make Israel safer? Will it bring the Middle East closer to peace? Will it improve the chances of freeing Iran from the mullah’s grasp or will it make them dangerously revengeful? And finally will it increase or decrease the chances of a nuclear attack on Israel during next 50 years?

The mullah’s regime in Iran can be called the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East but will an attack correct this or make it worse? NY Times in an editorial published this morning thinks it is the latter. Are they wrong?

BobL

You can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t make him drink it. Even Shiveh and Salamon admit the surge is a success only they don’t give the US any of the credit. Enough said for now about the surge, but I’m sure we will revisit the subject in the future.

Here is the way I view the coming elections and you probably won‘t like it:

THE REPUBLICANS CANNOT WIN ON THE ISSUES AND BARACK OBAMA IS A MIRAGE

The big problem is the economy which has cratered in an election year. The debt is ballooning. Gas prices are obviously at record levels. The housing market has crashed. Unemployment is up. Nothing about the economy is positive for Republicans and that is a nail in the coffin on most election years. On the Iraq front, people are tired of the war even as the surge has proven to be a success. There is a limit to the patience of the American people, and besides, the war in Afghanistan has not gone well either. In addition, McCain agrees with the Democrats on global warming, is opposed to drilling off our coast and in Anwar for oil, and generally agrees with Democrats on immigration, so there is nothing to be gained from any of those issues. Because the Republicans will lose a debate purely on the issues, I expect the Republicans to attack Barack’s inexperience, his liberal voting record, his associations (Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.) and attendance for twenty years at a black liberation theology church that will call into question his character and ability to unite the country. The Republicans can only win by painting Obama unfit for the most important job in the world - and they will try.

Barack Obama campaigned a year before anyone even bothered to look into his past. He overtook Hillary because the party realized Hillary was vulnerable. Almost 50% of voters said they would not vote for her if she was the party nominee. He campaigned on a platform of change and hope. He is very charismatic and is an outstanding speaker. People were fainting at his rallies on a regular basis. His ability to mesmerize people is similar in many respects to Bobby Kennedy. Liberals who hate Bush supported his candidacy without question. The media bought into his Presidential bid without asking serious questions for a year - just change and hope. However, a deeper look at Obama has caused many problems for his candidacy. If anything, he is a classic status quo politician. He calls himself someone who can unite the country, but he was a member of an extremely divisive church for twenty years. Even Oprah Winfrey left for political reasons. He recently resigned, but after 20 years? He has the most liberal voting record in the senate. He has not crossed the aisle to work with republicans that I’m aware of. He hasn’t visited Iraq in three years. How is all that supposed to unite the country? After questions surfaced about past associations and his church, Hillary won eight of the last fifteen primaries. These are not Republican voters questioning Obama, nor is it racism. Its electability. Recent national poles indicate that Hillary does better against McCain than Obama (column in the New York times). There is little doubt that had all this come out a year ago, Barack would not be the nominee. The Democrats found their Messiah - only he is a mirage.

Because the Republicans are so weak on the issues, this is the only year probably in the last 50 that Barack (regardless if he is black or white) could win the election based on his voting record and experience. Timing is everything. On the positive side, McCain is the only Republican that could have been nominated that has a chance to win as well in my opinion.

Shiveh

You are getting as long winded as me.

I think I more or less meant by “out there in left field” as “out of the realm of possibility” because Bush didn’t foresee the deterioration of the situation in Iraq so the plan could not have been to draw al-Qaeda terrorist to Iraq. Bush expected difficult times and he said as much when he announced the end of major operations, but he never expected the level of disintegration that occurred. I really don’t believe most people did.

When the US attacked Iraq, the major worry was the house to house fighting to take Baghdad, but that never materialized so Bush clearly underestimated the ensuing insurgency and the war between the Sunnis and Shiites for power.

Bush was in office only eight months when we were attacked so its hard to fault Bush for 911. Remember that Clinton had a couple of opportunities to capture and kill Bin Laden but chose not to. I don’t spend a lot of time blaming Clinton because no one really took Bin Laden seriously when he declared war on us in 1998(?) and that’s where the problem lies irrespective of Richard Clarke who must have warned Clinton also because much of the planning and training for 911 took place during the Clinton administration.

I don’t fault your use of the word “police action” only your definition. Rooting out al-Qaeda in Iraq required military operations. Sure, arrest were made which could be put in the category of “police action”, but for the most part, these were military operations very much like in Gaza. While NYPD is comprised of good men, they are simply not trained to root out insurgents - that’s the job of the military. The US used the Sunni insurgents for informants and as fighters, but the US military weren’t partying in the Green zone while this took place. In Mosul, the Iraqi military took the lead in the last major ops to root out al-Qaeda.

I don’t think I can disprove your theory, but I can disagree with certain parts. To begin with AIPAC and Israel don’t run our foreign policy in my opinion. Israel and the US are in lock step over the threat posed by Iran, however. I believe Israel, not the US will attack Iran. The US Congress has approved the sale of the Stealth fighter-bomber to Israel. The US has not allowed any other country in the world access to this aircraft which is very difficult to detect by radar. It would seem that the Stealth is a good aircraft to bomb nuclear facilities and/or Iranian capabilities to retaliate. From a regional point of view, the war in Iraq has allowed Iran to proceed with their nuclear program without fear that the US will attack - the greatest failure of the war in Iraq in my opinion. The Europeans have failed to step up to the plate by imposing significant sanctions on the Iranians, and their negotiations with Iran, which I’ve mentioned previously, have completely failed.

If an attack on Iran hinges on taking Syrian out of the Iranian orbit, then the attack will never take place because Syria and Israel will not reach an agreement at this point in time. The US is against the Israelis talking peace with Syria at a time when the US is trying to isolate Syria because of Syria's role in Lebanon and their ties to Iran.

There is a very vocal faction within Israel that believes that Israel is entitled to expand to the boundaries of the “land of Israel” so I am in partial agreement with your analysis of Israel. However, Israel did pull out of Gaza and southern Lebanon and gave up land for a peace treaty with Egypt. I believe that Israel does want peace, but there is a hard-line faction in Israel that believes the way to peace is by demanding peace in return - something that the Palestinians haven’t tried yet.

The question is irrevelant, for no-one knows the edxtent of AQ. It is propable that many Muslims, Iraqis etc have turned against this non-organized resistance/secretarian liquidator/terrorist group.

The real question is whether the Deceiver/Decider has managed to wreck the USA in his messianic efforts to establish the USA Hegonomy?

USSR'sa decline wqaws closely affilited to their disasterous Afgan War. The concentration of MSM and the Neo-con [with the Isreali/USA dual citizen core] concentrated on this Messianic dream, while the USA'ws economy took a major turn to fiasco land.

BOBL and MIKEB, in previous post had indicated that the costs of the NEOCON EFFORTS will be dire. I pointed out a number of times [based on experience in Canada] that constant life on credit is most destructive of society and national economy.

It is true, as cited by BOBL and others that the USA always looks for enemies whether real or imaginery, to sustain the Military industrial complex. Unfortunately when the costs run too high, the talking heads and TOM W, will concentrate on unmeaurable SPIN [e.g. is AQ defeated or not] to the exclusion to what ails the USA economy.

Unfortunately, examining the issue form Bin Laden's point of view, AQ has WON, for the USA is in an extreme economic mess, where printing money seems to be sole preoccupation of the Federal Reserve, while the NEOCON [and supporters] cabal is trying to foment another war. NOTABLE THAT NO NEOCON HAS CHILDREN inIraq/Afganistan/Somalia.

When the PResident of the SOLE SUPERPOWER has to go begging to OPEC LANd to get more oil at lower prices [andd get refused] the writin is on the wall:

GET OUT OF ME land, and fix your own problems, while we buy up the few remaing jewels of your economy, starting with your major banks [GM is not worth anything, so we'll let it selfdestruct.

I am very sorry that the above note had to be created, especially as I know from experience how hard life will be for the middle/lower classes while the USA rebuilds its national economy.

Yeh, right. So how come my youngst son is home from Iraq with a concussion and injuries from a IED that blew up his Bradley in a Sunni controlled area? The Whitehouse and press aren't doing their jobs. We are suffering hundred's of casulties every week at the hands of Al Qaida. Once we leave (and we WILL leave - every politcial group in Iraq, inclusing the Kurd's, now wants us to set a timetable for leaving!) Iran, representing the Shia nutjobs, and Saudi Arab, representing the Sunni fanatics (of which Al Qaida is a part) will fight it out for control of the country. Expect Al Qaida to to grow like some cancers, with equally devistating results to the West.

Yeh, right. So how come my youngst son is home from Iraq with a concussion and injuries from a IED that blew up his Bradley in a Sunni controlled area? The Whitehouse and press aren't doing their jobs. We are suffering hundred's of casulties every week at the hands of Al Qaida. Once we leave (and we WILL leave - every politcial group in Iraq, inclusing the Kurd's, now wants us to set a timetable for leaving!) Iran, representing the Shia nutjobs, and Saudi Arab, representing the Sunni fanatics (of which Al Qaida is a part) will fight it out for control of the country. Expect Al Qaida to to grow like some cancers, with equally devistating results to the West.

Tom Wonacott,

What I'm angry with the Bush administration is lying and using fear mongering to promote a one sided agenda without the benefit of a national debate based on the facts. Looking at Iraq today as a potential shining star of US foreign policy either means one is a great seer or had way too much vodka to drink. It has been my experience in life that people who have a cause worth fighting for don't have to lie and deceive people into siding with them. That certainly was not the case in Iraq. Hence, I'm real dubious as to historians finding a silver lining in the Bush pre-emptive strike against Iraq based on deceit. When one has to lie to promote their point of view they don't have much of a point to start with.

If ElQaeda in Iraq is, "Obviously its tenuous and Iraq could fall apart (again) tomorrow, but, none the less, implementation of the surge has had important and positive results," as you stated then I'm even more troubled. Anything that is tenuous and could fall apart tomorrow isn't something to take credit for. I could understand a statement along the lines since the surge violence has diminished in Iraq. We'd like to think the surge has been an important part of the reduced violence and while this decrease in violence is what we wanted to give the Iraqi government time to come together and be effective we still have some work to do. Instead we get a purely political statement from Hayden designed to give credence to an administration that has precious little credence to start with. Hayden's statements would have been far more credible if they corresponded with a drop in the threat level, but they didn't. Just more political theater from an administration that doesn't know how else to act.

As for the upcoming election I think Sen. McCain is a great man. I think he has all the qualities I'd like to see in a president. I also think Obama is a great man and has the same qualities. I side with Obama simply because he had the guts to vote against Iraq from the beginning. McCain and Clinton did not. Although, Clinton at least said if she wasn't lied to she would have voted against it. McCain has not done that. Over the issue of Iraq alone I will vote for Barrack. Democrats obviously have nothing against fighting wars or believing in the security of the US when there is a cause worth fighting for.

Tom Wonacott,

You asked me to “Give credit where credit is due.” I thought I did. The surge strategy was to move American Soldiers into the neighborhoods to establish and protect law and order. Based on the same strategy, Army enabled Sunni tribesmen by providing money, weaponry and protection to them. Before long Sunni security forces were able to retake AlQaeda strongholds. The result of this “police action” was a relative calm which is the basis for success of the surge. That is what I wrote. I’m sure the fact that Iraqi cities and neighborhoods are now segregated (as a result of the factional killings) also helped. Probably your objection is to the use of the term “police action.” Well, I have to call it as I see it!

I’ve noticed sometimes you respond to my posts by saying it is from the “left” or “left field.” I have to admit I do not know much about directional thinking. These are my thoughts and I’m always ready to adjust and enhance them if you give me a reason to do so. From so little that I know about “left” ideology, I’ve gathered that I defer when it comes to their tolerance of sexual preferences, (I’ll be very disappointed if my 12 year old son someday does not marry a beautiful young woman) and I also find the welfare system in America wasteful and excessive. I’ve also heard that the left’s strong base is among the college professors and college educated type; that makes it just harder for me to discredit any thought by attaching it to the “left” the way you do.

You are correct. PG question is about the defeat of AlQaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan at the present time. The reason I went through the damage done by AlQaeda’s action from the 9/11 attack till now is that the word “defeat” was used. In my view in order to see if the group was defeated, first you need to know what their objectives were and then to evaluate their success in achieving them. If they did achieve those objectives then they are done. It is too late for their defeat. I believe they planed to hurt us and mainly by the Bush administration’s incompetence they achieved this objective beyond their wildest dreams. Do not forget that much celebrated Condi Rice did not bother with Clark’s repeated warnings that AlQaeda (still not hipped to existential threat status) is out to harm us. A well managed police action at the time (like what Europe and the rest of the world are doing now) could have prevented the whole catastrophe.

Past is gone and we can not correct what we did wrong. Let’s see if we can prevent what is brewing now. The following is what I think is going on now. I’ll be more than happy to be proven wrong.

AIPAC has summoned the bulk of our politicians and is moving to the final stages of preparation for attacking Iran. Israeli’s are talking peace with Syria to move them to a neutral corner and use their influence to control Hezbollah and Hamas after the attack on Iran. Our administration is raising the price of gas gradually to what it would be if the flow from Middle East is temporarily halted. $200 a barrel is about what was predicted in such case. Now the flow from Strategic Reserves can calm the markets and the shock effect is controlled. Senator McCane is being prepared for presidency to follow on when Bush is gone. Republican smear machine is painting Obama as a Moslem unpatriotic opportunist and to my surprise some Americans are buying it. After November election if McCane wins I expect a Bush attack with McCane’s approval.

It’ll be a catastrophic event that makes the Iraq fiasco small in comparison. I blame Israel for this because I think they do not want peace in the Middle East. The statues quo helps them keep and add to the settlements, a more chaotic state can help them expand their territory. On the other hand, peace makes it almost impossible to keep a purely Jewish religious state without world condemnation.

I wouldn’t care this much if Israelis wouldn’t interfere so successfully in American politics to make us do and suffer for their dirty works. In my view by letting this black sheep run the family we are making the future blink for the whole family. My personal dilemma is that I like and respect the Jewish people for their love of knowledge and humanity but I’ve turned into a vocal Israel basher for what I think their wrong policies will eventually bring upon the world and their own people.

Your admission, Tom, that Bush had no idea what he was getting us into when he attached Iraq, yet you support him startled me. I appreciate it if you move the bars higher next time you vote for the leader of the free world.

BobL

The surge brilliantly exploited the rift between al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents. Despite the fact that many believed there was no military solution in Iraq, the surge was a military solution. Obviously its tenuous and Iraq could fall apart (again) tomorrow, but, none the less, implementation of the surge has had important and positive results.

The Presidential race is spectacular. Character and associations are important. Remember - both parties already know who you and I are voting for - its the "middle of the road" 10-20% of the vote that decides the election. You and I are not middle of the road. All character assassinations, associations, charges of racism, war monger, liberal, white guilt etc. will be directed at those voters.

I haven't discussed the invasion of Iraq because the PG question addressed al-Qaeda - today. The surge has been an important policy because the US enlisted Sunni insurgent help in rendering al-Qaeda "ineffectively dangerous" in Iraq (I like that Bob).

The invasion of Iraq will be discussed for generations to come. Its certainly possible that it will Bush's most important foreign policy achievement (not failure). Since an INCREASE in troop levels led to the current gains, it only follows logically that a complete troop withdrawal in 16 months as Obama has promised will have the opposite affect. Maybe Obama should take McCain's advise and go to Iraq since he hasn't been there in nearly three years.

When you politically invest in defeat - as the Democrats have - then you have a tendency to enact policies that will support your investment.

Tom Wonacott,

I'm not anti-republican. I'm anti Bush/Cheney and generally anti the conservative faction of the republican party. This is a distinction that is worth noting. I make an attempt at judging competence regardless of party affiliation. From a purely policy standpoint I tend to agree with democrats more often then republicans, but that doesn't diminish my respect for a party that I believe has America's best interest at heart. I voted for Ronald Reagan over Carter because I believed Carter was a good man, but an ineffective president.
I don't tow the democratic party line and I don't tow the republican one either.

While I would hope for a presidential campaign between McCain and Obama to be fought on the merits of their visions I'm not naive enough to believe this will happen. Conservative radio, Limbaugh and Hannity, have already started the personal smear campaign against Obama. The tone is one that is questioning his patriotism by blowing out of porportion his ties to the Muslims, radicals and black preachers. I find this form of unfounded character assasination depolorable.

As to the surge in Iraq. Short term results in a conflict mean very little. While it is true violence in the country has been down it's a quantum leap to assume this is because of the surge and even a greater leap to assume this trend will continue. Enough time hasn't passed to analayze what is happening yet. For all we know the Sunni's and Shia are just bidding their time until after our election and hoping we'll pull out so they can finish what they started. We simply don't have a definitive answer yet as to why the violence has decreased at this point and assuming it is the surge, which it might be, is premature at best.

On ElQaeda I expected your answer. Even though Hayden has said ElQaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan have been rendered ineffective Bin Laden and his fellow cave dwellers in Pakistan (if that's even where he is) are still a mighty danger to our way of life. Frankly, I find this logic sorely lacking. Either we have rendered ElQaeda ineffective or we haven't. If we have rendered them ineffective then lower the threat level in this country. If we haven't don't be so stupid as to go on television and say we have, but they are still dangerous. What are they? Are they dangerous or ineffective? You can't have it both ways. Sorry, I can't resist this next remark. Maybe ElQaeda is currently ineffectively dangerous.

On Iraq in general all we have to really be proud of is the bravery and sacrifice the vast majority our troops have shown. Other then that this campaign has been a debacle based on falsehoods. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq wasn't harboring, equipping, training or condoning terrorists. We blew them up anyway and muttered something about Saddam being a bad man to justify it after the fact when none of the concrete reasons we went there to begin with turned out to be true. I know you're fond of invoking the UN resolutions at this point, but please spare me. A weaker argument for invading Iraq couldn't exist.

The bottom line is I would expect nothing else of this administration then politically motivated self serving statements like Hayden's remarks. Leave it to Bush to sell the American people a "DANGEROUS INEFFECTIVE TERRORIST GROUP."

Alcohol abuse

Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.

http://www.alcoholabusecenter.com

BobL

I’m not even debating whether the surge worked anymore, but the best way for you to determine the effectiveness of the surge is to gage the reactions of the Democrats. Its similar to watching buzzards. When they are circling, that generally means they have found a dieing animal and its only a matter of time. The Democrats were circling prior to the 2006 elections and focused on the ineffectiveness of the Iraqi government and Iraqi military (security forces), the increased US military deaths and the increased violence to the Iraqi people which was believed by most to be a full blown “civil war” - a situation that many believed could only be solved by Iraqis. In other words, the Democrats suggested there was no US military solution and called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq (at least, that was what they said leading up to the elections).

All of the above problems have improved considerably in Iraq today because of the surge so the democrats now talk about the “cost of the war” in Iraq or that the effort in Iraq has hampered our efforts in the “good war” in Afghanistan. - even though the war in Afghanistan (at this point) is nation building much like Iraq. The New York Times ran an editorial yesterday about Bush hyping and twisting the intelligence to invade Iraq, but nothing about the surge - another sure sign the surge is working. The situation in Iraq is clearly tenuous, but defeating al-Qaeda is important because their goal is to create chaos by provoking civil conflict - a result that could unravel the government in a hurry.

I can envision Iraq becoming a state similar to Lebanon where power sharing is the model. Unlike Lebanon which has a powerful Iranian built militia {Hizbollah) that controls the process to its advantage, it would be important to limit Iran’s hegemony in Iraq (in my opinion).

To answer your question, al-Qaeda may not have much of a presence in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore, but on the world stage, they clearly have not been defeated (see Muhammed Allam’s #5 which I believe is correct). In Pakistan, for example, al-Qaeda need only worry about US drones. Pakistan’s post election policies (of appeasement) are exactly what Bin Laden prayed for, but those policies are doomed to fail because the jihadist are not political about their ideology or their thirst for power.

I’m as fervently anti Democrat as pro Republican, but you are right, Bush has earned your doubt.

Yeah, give Bush&Co. some credit...

The Lancet (medical journal) estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then.

Not to mention the 4000 Dead American GIs as of March 2008.

3000 Dead from Sept 11th.

600,400 Since March of 2003.

What is the larger tragedy???

Hang the US War Criminals!

If Al Qaeda has been defeated, we no longer need a (now useless) government department called Homeland Security. In fact I think we never needed this useless bureaucratic institution. The creation of this department was just to show the public, we (the politicians) are doing something. We need to get rid of the departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security and several others.
That will never happen because no bureaucacy ever goes out of existance on it's own. Every department director is busy building up their own little empire.

It is important to note that Al Quaeda did not exist in Iraq before the war started by the Bush administration.
As there is no formal proof that the insurgents who declare they are part of Al Quaeda are more or less defeated, no one should deserve any credit.
The latest report confirming that the war in Iraq was based on false or deformed intelligence proves that the deaths, waste and mess caused by this war should not call for any credit now or everafter.

Tom Wonacott,

My question still stands. If ElQaeda has been rendered ineffective according to Hayden, and assuming they are (or were) our greatest terrorist threat when will we see the threat level lower in the US?

What I'm afraid is happening is the same thing Richard Nixon did. He campaigned on getting out of Vietnam and then escalated the war, 4 years later he had Kissinger state that peace was at hand to get re-elected only to escalate it again after being re-elected. Sound familiar? Now the surge is working (when we really don't have a clue whether it is or isn't and won't know the answer to this question until we leave) and ElQaeda has been rendered ineffective. Given this administrations history with WMD's, torture, a pledge to get BinLaden, the civil war in Iraq, etc., etc., please forgive me for questioning this administrations veracity. However, even a fervent republican like yourself has to be able to see the Bush Administration has earned the skepticism the vast majority of Americans have assigned to it.

yeah, sure, whatever.... AQ is so scared of Bush that they have not even bothered to move into a new cave, given the fact that their first cave has not been discovered some 7 years later.....
LOL

BobL and Shiveh

The PostGlobal question specifically addressed the question of al-Qaeda, but the war in Iraq is much more complicated than the role of al-Qaeda. Al-Zarqawi was the leader of AQI. Besides the usual attacks against coalition forces (American for the most part), his most important contribution was fomenting the conflict between Shia and Sunni insurgents. Al-Qaeda’s most compelling attack was the bombing of the (Shia) al-Askari Mosque in Samarra in 2006.

Hindsight suggests that a civil conflict was always the greatest danger, and probably inevitable in Iraq. The minority Sunnis ruled the country. Shiites (and Kurds) were second class citizens in Iraqi society, and were subject to torture and mass killings during Saddam’s reign. The power struggle between Sunnis and Shiites resulted from this disparity promoted by Saddam for two decades, and the overthrow of his government. Al-Zarqawi adeptly exploited that fissure in Iraqi society, none the less, al-Qaeda played a secondary role in the destabilization of Iraq after the invasion.

“…But when the fever subsided and their decapitation works were publicized, super hero image melted away. People saw them for who they were and did not like what they saw. That is the main reason for their demise in Iraq…”

True, however, there is a big difference between killing fellow Muslims and killing Americans, or for that matter, infidels (civilians - as in 9/11 or 7/7)). A 2005 Pew poll indicated a 51% support by Pakistanis for Bin Laden. That was before al-Qaeda and the Taliban began a series of suicide attacks against targets in Pakistan as well as the assassination of Bhutto. That support has dwindled but only because “their chickens had come home to roost” (to quote a Wright winger). To that extent, the Taliban and al-Qaeda have hurt their cause.

The surge, in part, adeptly exploited the “philosophical difference” between al-Qaeda and Sunni insurgents. Give credit where credit is due.

To suggest that the we attacked Iraq to attract terrorist is out there in left field. In addition, that would have required way too much foresite for Bush who declared “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” in 2003. As a Bush supporter, I can say without reservation that Bush was clueless about the road ahead in Iraq.

Ah, if I only could be a conservative and see the world in terms of black and white. If this were the case I wouldn't need proof ElQaeda had been defeated or at least rendered ineffective I could just believe an administration that has a history of lying. I could point to a few meaningless recent incidents to bolster my claim Bush has done great things and even pat him on the back for no successful attacks against the US since 911. However, since I'm not a conservative I don't believe a single word that emits from the mouth of anyone attached to this administration.

Whether ElQaeda was ever a viable force to be reckoned with will take years to sort out. Yes they blew up the World Trade Centers and hit the Pentagon. To coin a Civil War phrase at Gettysburg it's looking more and more like that was ElQaeda's high water mark (Gettysburg). It's pretty much been all down hill since then. It's obviously one thing to engage in the cowardice act of attacking defenseless civilians vs. taking on a highly trained and well equipped military.

The sad truth is America loves enemies. We relish in them. They unite us and give us purpose. If we don't really have one we'll invent one. Then we'll sell this overblown enemy to our general public as the great nemesis capable of fundamentally changing or destroying our way of life. Bin Laden must of loved rhetoric from Bush. Basically, a rag tag group of spedunkeler's was elevated by the President of the United States into a status of a heinous enemy capable of destroying our way of life. The sad part of this history is so many people believed him. The Empire of Japan and the Third Reich working together couldn't defeat the United States and now all of a sudden a rag tag group of maniacs running around chanting God is Great is going to? Anyone who believes this needs to get a life. On the world scene ElQaeda has been and will remain a group of religious fanatics who deserve to be treated as criminals.

When one steps back and thinks it only took 4,000 American lives, a couple hundred thousand Iranian lives and a couple of trillion dollars to make ElQaeda ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan I sincerely doubt the price justified the results.

My one question for Mr. Hayden is with all this thumping we've been doing on ElQaeda and rendering them ineffective how soon will it be before we see the terrorist threat level in the US go down or be eliminated? (Don't hold your breath we need these enemies)

I would hate to spoil the party... Yet, after reading today's latest national news, should anyone still feel the urge to state publicly that the Bush Administration deserves to take credit for something, one ought to suggest that it takes credit for jobs having been lost at the rate of 15,000 per week (i.e. in excess of 2,000 jobs per day) since the beginning of this year.

Should we not be invited to discuss, as our first priority, the present state of the US economy? With the best intentions, this is just a suggestion, of course...

If Michael Hayden is making a political statement in an election year, then by downplaying security concerns, he is diverting attention to economic problems at home. So be it.

If he really means what he says, then some review of the objectives of the players involved is in order.

In 2001, some men from a rag-tag group of dead enders boarded a few American planes and smashed them into WTC and the Pentagon. They did it to hurt us. The immediate cost to US from this action is estimated at 3000 lives and over one trillion dollars. The reaction of the Bush administration is estimated to cost between 2-3 trillion additional dollars and death of at least 4000 soldiers. The reduced attention to problems of economy, education and infrastructure that followed this distraction can cost America her supremacy in the near future. America’s moral stature is damaged. Yet, the war in Afghanistan can still be lost and the one in Iraq is lingering.

If Michael Hayden sees these results as a defeat for Al-Qaeda, then as my wife would say, “he is funny!!”

The reason Al-Qaeda in Iraq is losing influence is that radical Islam was never a mainstream movement in the Islamic world to begin with. For a short while after 9/11 they enjoyed a super hero status of the same kind that president Bush enjoyed after attacking Iraq. But when the fever subsided and their decapitation works were publicized, super hero image melted away. People saw them for who they were and did not like what they saw. That is the main reason for their demise in Iraq.

Punishing the whole societies by military action does not defeat the minority radicals of those societies; it fertilizes the grounds for their survival. It took the US army 4 years to figure this out. They reduced the Al-Qaeda threat by giving money and weapons to the Sunni tribes and by giving them the authority to rebuild their security force and to hunt down the criminal elements in their society. It is called police action.

It really makes me sick as an American when I hear people talk about “taking the war to them” as a valid reason to attack Iraq. Did we really attacked cities full of people who had not harmed us to attract terrorists to them? Are we using Iraqi flesh and blood as bait to hunt foreign terrorists? Al-Qaeda succeeds to the extend that they make us look like them. That is where Bush and company have really failed us.

Wow, great post Tom Wanacott, couldn't have said it better myself!

Daniel, great questions. I guess that the next President will have to try to come up with answers for these questions. I wonder if it would be fair to ask these very questions at the upcoming presidential debates.

PG

Under Bush’s leadership, al-Qaeda was defeated in Afghanistan and forced to flea to Pakistan. After the US botched the occupation in Iraq through much of the first four years, the surge recommended by General Patraeus and approved by Bush, resulted in the recent rout of al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda still has a presence in Iraq, but they are disjointed and on the run.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a world-wide ideological movement. Al-Qaeda is the most well known of many Islamic terrorist organizations that seek to impose totalitarian (Islamic) governments on their populations. Jihadist view the Taliban rule in Afghanistan as their model society. Many Islamic veteran fighters involved in conflicts around the world, trained in Afghanistan and now travel to train in Pakistan - a safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist. While Islamist may or may not be connected directly to al-Qaeda, they are driven to attain the same goals. In this respect, their movement is similar to other totalitarian movements of the twentieth century (fascism and communism). Al-Qaeda and related organizations are far from defeated on the world stage. Military action is required in many cases and the attempt to paint Islamic terrorist organizations as criminal behavior requiring only police action is misguided at best, but at worst, denies radical Islam as a world-wide religious political movement.

Of course Bush should get the credit for our success against al-Qaeda. Patraeus should be credited for devising and implementing the surge. Many will argue (mostly liberals) that al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we invaded. Its irrelevant. Thousands of Al-Qaeda fighters traveled to Iraq, and used a brutal campaign of murder, torture and intimidation (terrorism Fareed) to help provoke a civil war. Al-Qaeda considered Iraq to be their most important battlefield to defeat the US - their Midway ( for the most part, al-Qaeda has not had a significant presence in Afghanistan since they were forced to move to Pakistan). Much of their resources were diverted to Iraq. Their defeat in Iraq is a bitter loss. Part of the credit for the success of the surge, however, can be attributed to al-Zarqawi and other leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) that alienated the Sunni population because of their brutally coercive methods. AQI killed more Muslims than Americans by far. AQI fought a desperate war against the US in Iraq and discredited their own movement in the process. Ironically, their support has dwindled in Pakistan for many of the same reasons.

The surge produced the defining strategy to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq had its “fewest security incidents in four years” last week. Against a skeptical democratic congress and tremendous criticism, Bush approved the increase in troops and the strategy to embed US soldiers in the local population. In addition, better security has allowed the Iraqi government to reach many benchmarks. The Iraqi army has improved tremendously and while needing some help, they have performed well. The situation in Iraq is still tenuous and considerable uncertainty surrounds the US elections, but, all in all, Bush deserves all the credit for defeating al-Qaeda (to date). The party of defeat (Democrats) had no problem apologizing for their vote to go to war (for political reasons), but they have not apologized for being wrong about the surge (also for political reasons). Don't expect one.

Bush should also be given credit for zero attacks on US soil since the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Alqaida is a stateless power.It is a movement based on micro level activism.In Iraq and Afghanistan American and allies removed the baathist and Talibani,the old friends,not the Alqaida goverment.As far as both these nations are concerned these are just a tarinig ground for them.they are living with people waiitng for their chance to rise.they following the policy of wait and watch.in another word if Alqiada is really defeated then there are questions to be answered?
1 If they (alqiada) really defeated then surely we willsee the withdrawl of American forces from there.
2 UNo mandate to them to stay in these countries is related to Alqaida mission.If they really accomplished the UNO will not extend the mission for another year.
3 What is garauntee that Bush defaeted the Alqiada.four years back MR bush claimed the same about Iraq but now wee saw the death of American and allies slodiers more than 4000.
4 Is it not a trick to divert the mind of illegal wars in both countires and justifying the killing of millions of people in both these countries?
5 see the ongoing violence in the world.do not we see that alqaida has changed the tricks to diversify the grounda and geographical area.The sort peace cannot be termed as victory..
other hand Alqiada is an ideological movement not the martial movement.Can military power crush the ideology?if yes then certainly a praiseworty job done by american and allies.

"al-Qaeda is more or less defeated in Iraq"

...

Yes, very funny. So Sadam Hussein should take even more credit because BEFORE the US invasion, there was no al-Qaeda AT-ALL in Iraq ?

Do you read the questions you ask ? Would you give credit to someone who has "more or less" extinguished a fire he has made himself ?

Yes, the Bush administration should get some credit unless you believe there was no real terrorist threat to begin with or that terrorism has declined by means unrelated to U.S. efforts. Supposing there was a terrorist threat and it has declined by U.S. efforts--could only have declined by U.S. efforts--then we have to ask how well the war on terrorism was prosecuted. Could we have been any better at it? If we could have been better, how do we know that? Certainly we know that we can be better by not accepting "more or less defeated"...But then what does the utter defeat of terrorism look like? Should we accept statistics such as Zakaria provides (that support for terrorism has dropped to 4% in this area, 1% in that in the Muslim world)? Is that a sign of utter defeat or "more or less"? Speaking of statistics such as Zakaria provides, if support for terrorism is so low in the Muslim world today why is it all of the terrorists have not been rounded up? How can terrorism exist at all with so little support? Can we rely on statistics from the Muslim world (from the mouths of Muslims) to determine support for terrorism? It seems only logical to conclude that terrorism will be a problem until the day that Muslims police themselves and certainly do not allow terrorism to be more than a local criminal activity. So far terrorism is beyond local criminal activity and is an international crime of the highest order--so high it can be considered an act of war. If Muslims cannot reduce terrorism themselves outside powers will intrude in the Muslim world. This seems more and more inevitable, especially with the proliferation of WMD. It would be a shame if Muslims cannot change themselves, because outside powers are not going to change for Muslims. Certainly replacing Bush is not going to lead to any fundamental change between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Is the premise born of ignorance, stupidity, immorality or a combination(s)?

Impeach, Convict, Impoverish, Punish.

I am ready willing and able to believe whatever this administration says. And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you!

I am ready willing and able to believe whatever this administration says. And if you believe that, I have a bridge I want to sell you!

Credit? Are you kidding me?? What bush and cheneny deserve is to go out the same way as Sadam, feet first.

While I am still skeptical and guardedly optimistic, I believe the Bush administration should be given some level of credit for their efforts which had become increasingly unpopular. I believe his adminstration deserves credit just as the Democrats in Congress deserve some credit for applying resistance to the administration's previous policies, or others, such as Sen. McCain, who promoted the "surge" and were ultimately seeking success for America's foreign policy. Success should be our goal as Americans - together. There is too much one-upsmanship in our foreign policy these days, imo.

Bush invented al-Qaeda in Iraq. The fact that they have any presence there at all is a failure for the United States.

Bush squandered military success and global sympathy in the war in Afghanistan when he sent troops to Iraq. Taking the focus off Afghanistan has added years to the war in Afghanistan, which is still very much not yet won. Al-Qaeda has never been a significant influence in Iraq; all we have done is given Iraq a messy civil war that pushes people around the world into anti-American militancy.

The war in Afghanistan is further clouded by political confusion in Pakistan, where Al-Qaeda does most of its recruiting. This confusion is largely the result of years of unquestioning support from the US to Pakistan's dictatorship, which again pushed people into the Taliban's arms.

The US has yet to achieve its primary legitimate military objective, the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This war won't be won while Bush is commander-in-chief, because of the many obstacles he has thrown in the path of our armies.

Assuming the CIA's claim is accurate, I find it misleading to claim all credit for a victory on both fronts.

One ought to consider that a large part of the reason Al Qaeda has been driven out of many parts of Iraq is because of local communal vigilante groups resisting Al Qaeda's attempts of taking over and had very little to do with the US military (unless the CIA wants to claim that they used this as one of their covert methods).

Yeah, certainly, the US and George W. Bush should be given due credit for this achievement of 'more or less' finishing off Al-Qaeda's nuisance!

However, we should also pay attention to a strong associated probability that the people who were its sympathisers could have become utterly fed up with death and destruction all around. Their dwindling support could have significantly weakened Al-Qaeda's base.

But it is no time for celebrations or complacency. Potentially, Al-Qaeda is still the most deadly terrorist organisation in the world and we need to be alert always. ... They could anytime re-emerge from their hibernation!

More or less isn't acceptable. It is either defeated or not

If this news is correct then of course Mr. George Bush and his adminstration should get 100% credit.

They are the team leaders to forge an alliance of so many different cultures having entirely different opinion and remined standing firm steering head on collision course on many un popular storms.

If they are successful today then of course they must celebrate the success and desrves the credit for their effort. Success itself is such a magic that it supersedes ethics, religion and law.

But they are un lucky that the ghost of WMD will remain haunted with them and their words will not be taken so seriously.

Today the people will eventually demand more credible indicators. They will ask immidiately that if the enemy is almost defeated then what will be the future course of action, and they must have an appealing answer ready for those critics who will see this statement just an image building exercise in final days of the administration

It's sad to see folks writing about doom and gloom because they cannot bear to give George Bush any credit for anything. Al Qaeda is fading and we should all be happy about it. It's good for our country,,,,

My guess is they've been defeated just as much as the US Military has been defeated. I wish we had the wisdom to get out of that hell and regroup like they do.

http://www.politicartoons.com

As with all our enemies, one will be in a position to say that al-Quaeda may have been "more or less defeated" only after the causes for its existence, once fully identified, analysed, and dealt with, at last, will no longer exist. Meanwhile, the above assertion being made public not very long prior to the next presidential elections, and belonging exclusively to the realm of political propaganda and of wishful thinking, no credit is due.