Oh yeah...cause Americans really want to get involved in another war.

America is less likely to respond with force to another 9/11 type event because of Iraq. Our military has been stretched and the likelyhood that Americans will rally around the president in support of another front in the WoT has been set back. Your analysis is exactly backwards.

Iraq provided few benefits and great obstacles to our ability to freely use our military to destroy our real enemies.

Jeremy, why have there been no large scale, Islamist terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11?

Mark,

Do you really think there have been no large scale Islamist attacks on America because we invaded Iraq, a nation which has never had anything to do with Islamist terrorist attacks on America?

Al Queda's diminished ability to execute an American attack has much more to do with the fact that we've decimated their command structure in Afghanistan/Pakistan. When you make the argument that Iraq has something to do with keeping them out of America you stop making sense.

The invasion of Iraq, far more than of primitive Afghanistan, has warned state sponsors of terror that the faintest association with a US domestic attack will attract massive payback. That has eliminated or inhibited the erstwhile sponsors - Saddam, Iran, Syria, Libya. Geo-political wusses like you are the the Islamists' greatest asset. Perhaps it will take a disaster to wake you folk from your a-historical dreams.

>Now AQ fears that another 9/11 would be answered by a massive and ferocious US attack which wouldn't respect Pakistani, Syrian or Iranian borders

I don't believe that for a minute

Let's re-cap:

-No AQ attacks in US for >5 years,
-AQ attempts and successes elsewhere,
-Tenet says AQ 'here and waiting'

It follows that there's been a conscious decision by AQ to hold off in the US. Unless you believe that Tenet's wrong and US domestic security is too tight for AQ to penetrate, you have to explain the motive for that conscious decision. I say it's fear of the US response and AQ's fear of the reaction of the terror states who fear the US because of Iraq (tho less now; thanks to Reid etc, domestic terrorism is far more likely).

The floor is yours ...

This sounds more like a religious discussion than a political one.

Its not as if we don't know what's happening here. Al Qaeda's activities have not diminished-does not one remember 7/7 in London?

Any number of small scale attacks have been catalogued all over the U.S., including numerous shopping mall attacks by American muslims. No one wants to tell you these were al Qaeda, or al Qaeda inspired attacks, but we have objective proof that many and perhaps all of these Muslims were subjected to radical indoctrination prior to their attacks.

A reasonable explanation for this is that the Bush administration's actions post 9/11 made it difficult if not impossible for middle eastern muslims to travel to the U.S. without significant scrutiny.

Still, the lefties are missing the point (as usual) but only focusing on U.S. domestic security. Al Qaeda isn't involved in simply a war against the U.S., but a war against everyone who doesn't embrace their doctrine. In the nineties, the media was enamored with the prospect of globalism and the aphorism, "the world is flat". In essence, we discovered that fortress America was a myth, that what happens in Thailand (remember the currency crisis in Thailand and how it created billion dollar bankruptcies here in the U.S.?) matters here and everywhere else.

The strategic reality for Al Qaeda is that it exists in a target-rich environment. They can literally attack anywhere in the world and achieve their objectives. Disrupt Saudi oil exports and Europe is in a heap of trouble. Disrupt Russian gas pipelines--the same outcome.

There single biggest weakness is the need for a base of operations. The main reason that al Qaeda attacks have been curtailed is the loss of a friendly government and secure bases in Afghanistan. Not unsurprisingly, al Qaeda has sought to reestablish a safe haven in Pakistan and that situation is very worrisome.

Also not surprising, al Qaeda is trying to establish a base of operations in Iraq, which of course the Democrats wants to help them do with our unilateral surrender.

Now pay attention my liberal-Democrat readers: while Democrats pooh-poohed the idea of a collaboration between al Qaeda in Iraq, they studiously ignored the real issue--Saddam's government, and thus his total control in Iraq, was tottering before we invaded. Regardless of whether Saddam himself was an actual threat to U.S. itself, his imminent fall was a serious problem. Al Qaeda had already established a base in Kurdistan--taking advantage of Saddam's weakness and the Kurdish conflict. It was, shall we say, an inspired investment.

As has been discussed in more enlightened circles, the real war with al Qaeda lies in the failed states, or near-failed states. Iraq was and is by far the most dangerous of them for the obvious reason of its geography and massive oil reserves.

Democrats simply will not even look at this reality because they desperately want to emulate Canada's failed health care system and insure their political prosperity.

There will be another 9/11 is we elect a Democrat president because doing a mythological ostrich imitation--which is Democrat policy, is a catastrophe. We need to be in Iraq and we need to win or else kiss your ass goodbye.

Agreed, but with the emphasis that fear and, yes, terror can work both ways. We need to terrorize the leaders of Iran and Syria. Iran is openly collaborating with AQ in Iraq to murder our troops because the US hits back with the State Department ('like being savaged by a dead sheep'). Iran does not allow AQ to hit the US in the US from Iranian shelter because Iran fears retaliation. That threat is real in their minds because of America's willingness to hit Iraq. The policy outcome of this is that the US needs to find ways to make Iran and Syria feel terrorized. That is the humane and patriotic policy.
As a coda to the liberals - note that the ones who have most contempt for the Democrats' pre-emptive surrender are the US grunts, the ones who have most to lose by fighting to win, most to lose except their honour.

I'm still amazed at politicos, such as Hillary Clinton, who refer to a vote to withdraw as "voting to end the war". This is only true if she means she is willing for the US to completely capitulate. Otherwise the war continues on another front, just as it was in progress before we arrived in Iraq, albeit a little harder. I think Totten has a comment about how we lose Afghanistan if we give up Iraq. If the Demo's are able to get the country to turn its back on Iraq, think the US would ever be effective in Darfur?

Mick rightly points out that Al Quada (or any other terrorist group) needs a supporting state. George Bush made it policy to start hacking at roots by going after such states. The Demo's want was swinging at the leaves again.

You guys really are uncorrelated. Mark thinks Al Queda is afraid to attack America because we invaded Iraq and Mick thinks that Al Queda is behind every crime or offensive gesture any Muslim commits. The way he states things you'd think he has a closet full of evidence that the Trolley Square massacre was planned and organized by Bin Laden himself. Apparently evidence isn't necessary when a criminal is also a Muslim...we can just safely assume he's an Al Queda soldier.

It seems we're all agreed that America can never withdraw from Iraq while there is a "War on Terror".

You'll find that I've never argued for a complete withdrawal from Iraq but I have argued that our invasion and associated nation building efforts were a colossal waste of men, resources, and an excellent strategic position in the world.

If we invaded Iraq because it was a failing state which could be friendly to Al Queda terrorists looking for training grounds to replace their Afghan accommodations you almost have to wonder why we haven't invaded Sudan, Somalia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and every other nation where there are good hiding places and weak/friendly governments where terrorists can train.

I don't claim to know why the Bush administration thought putting America through this needless mess was a great idea but I do hold them accountable. You righty bloggers who rarely seem to recognize when Republicans make mistakes deserve some of the blame as well. America's government is in a worse position now strategically and financially than we were in 2003 and it is largely because of our current President and the recently defeated Republican Congress. You are such apologists for Republican politicians you won't admit the errors made and there are very few of you willing to try to change things. It is too bad because I'm a believer in the power of dedicated political bloggers who are willing to call events as they see them instead of just parroting the party line. This blog just might have the influence to move things in a better direction if you were willing to direct just a fraction of the vitriol you spew at Democrats towards correcting some of the screwed up politicians and policies in your own party. Perhaps that wouldn't be as satisfying for you as blaming the next 9/11 on the "Crats" of the future but it would lend you a little more credibility.

That's because we're uncorrelated parrots.

Heh...at least I didn't call you a "Geo-political Wuss". :-)