I wanted to make sure you saw this. I'm not sure how strictly you enforce thread discipline around these parts - sorry if it's bad form.

Some unconcious assumptions, some concious...

First, yes, apparently I did miss the media reports about big piles of cash buried underground. But, as you say, it's a low-percentage possibility. It's my understanding, though, that the Swiss have stood up to American pressure about anonymity. (And rightly so.)

I absolutely conceed the point on the word "terrorists". TB's post on that made me see the light. Yes, there is a distinction between targeting civilians and military. (Do police count? Hmmm...)

"Foreign fighters" is too much for me to type, so I'll just say jihadis. I'm sure they wouldn't object to the label.

Were they "brought" or "sent"? Or did they travel to Iraq in answer to the call to "liberate" Iraq? How do you know they were members of a formal terrorist organization and traveled under orders? How do you know that they were "supplied" with weapons; the Middle East is already awash in weapons. The invitations read "BYOG&A"--bring your own guns and ammo

Not disputing BYOG&A. Two things make me think this is more organized than a deer hunt - first, the origins. Syrians and Saudis, yeah. But Yemen? Sudan? That's a long way, especially for the Sudanese. There's plenty of infidels to ventilate right in Sudan - why go to Iraq?

Second, the location. They were caught between Mosul and the Syrian border. Syria is a fairly well-organized police state. Four score jihadis toting their own weapons is going to attract some attention from Damascus.

They *might* have crossed from Turkey, but I doubt it. There's a lot of Turkish military near the Iraqi border. True, the Turks were playing provoceteur recently, or trying to, but now they're playing nice with the US, trying to crack down once and for all on the PKK, or KADEK, or whatever they're calling themselves now.

What?? There is such a preponderance of reporting about the continued presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and NW Pakistan that I'm justified in challenging you to prove that assertion. Are you just trying to engage in semantic gymnastics by separating NW Pakistan from Afghanistan? I have heard the reports that AQ's top leadership is now in Iran, so I'll grant you that one

No, not really trying gymnastics. The Pakistani government doesn't control the "tribal" areas, and the Af/Pak border is just a line on the map in most places. There isn't a practical difference. Again, I probably should have been more clear. Al Qaeda's leadership, IMHO, is no longer frequenting safehouses in places like Karachi, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar.

I saw the report in the Guardian recently, quoting Mansoor Ijaz (normally very good source). But I dont' think he's right this time. Bin Laden *may* be in NW Pakistan, but I think it's far more likely he's in Iran, or perhaps moving back and forth from Iranian Baluchistan to Pakistani Baluchistan.

But what does it really mean to say that Al Qaeda's "center of gravity is in Saudi Arabia"? Their hearts and souls? Their source of funds?

Yes and yes. Much more of my thoughts on that below, posted as "Oil. Not advocating theft." Or some such - under "Our good friends the Saudis." (Is there a way to link to individual posts?)

Surely you don't mean actual numbers of Al Qaeda operatives. We went after them in Afghanistan because that was their tangible and physical "center of gravity". They are still there.

Afghanistan was crawling with al Qaeda in 2001, because it was a) remote b) friendly to al Qaeda and c) the location of the training camps. They're not there any more. It's not worth their while. Americans are just an airstrike away, training camps are likely set up in Iran, Bekaa valley, Pankisi Gorge, maybe Indonesia. Al Qaeda has dispersed. Al Qaeda was formed out of affiliate organizations in any case - Afghanistan was a good place to train, but it's no longer safe for large-scale training.

They (the Taliban) just tried to re-take Zabul province. We won. They lost.

You're just repeating Bush's latest spin trying to put a happy face on the war

I believe this was part of the overall plan. Here's why: In a July 5 column David Warren uses the term "flypaper" as one of the reasons for the war. In a Sept. 6 column, Andrew Sullivan uses the exact same term, and Sullivan specifically mentions a pre-war conversation with an administration official.

I see what your reaction may be - Warren and Sullivan are both hawks and notorious right-wingers. That is so. Could Sullivan be lying in a bid to justify the war ex post facto? Yeah, he could.

But in writing this column, Sullivan supports Warren's. (And Warren is the first column I saw describing the concept.) Warren is a... well, I won't describe him as a homophobe, but he has some pretty strong opinions on the subject. Sullivan is not bashful, either. So I find it unlikely Sullivan would publish in support of Warren, unless the report is true.

Ask yourself this common-sense question: Bush publicly announced that his "strategy" is to lure all the terrorists to the killing fields of Iraq so we can finish them off at a time and place of our choosing, at our convenience. Do you think they somehow missed that speech? Why would they obediently march off to their own executions?

No, Bush isnt' the pied piper, Osama won't go riding into Basra on horseback with a brass band.

But we have created a situation that they cannot ignore. "It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy."

(From the linked piece) He says that it is vital to prevent any normalization and stabilization in Iraq. Muslim militants should make sure that the United States does not succeed in holding elections in Iraq and creating a democratic government. "If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world," Al-Ayyeri writes.....

"Do we want what happened in Turkey to happen to all Muslim countries?" he asks. "Do we want Muslims to refuse taking part in jihad and submit to secularism, which is a Zionist-Crusader concoction?"

Al Qaeda can't abide American success in Iraq. They can't ignore American success in the capital of the Caliphate. They must act.

Yes, they are sending cannon fodder, and we'll scoop them up by the bushelful. The loss of so much cannon fodder will be demoralizing after a time. Cannon fodder have families. The cannon fodder have friends. They will go on jihad to Iraq - and never be heard from again.