Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to AQI = Al Qaeda in Iraq

I am well aware of where al Qaida is...
TB — (archived)

Including various nations in Africa (particularly the north and southeast), southeast Asia, and of course, holed up in Western Pakistan. I probably track them a lot more closely than you do.

When you ask a Democrat how they would deal with these enclaves, the usual response I've gotten is that they leap out the nearest window screaming "FIRE!" The loopier ones declare that they will send in policemen.

Kevin believes that Iraq will simply defeat al Qaeda with the U.S. stationed somewhere in Kuwait or beyond, ignoring the glaring fact that whenever we have abandoned an area of that nation on the ground, al Qaeda has moved in in force and taken over entire towns and areas. This is history, not speculation. Eventually, the Iraqis will be able to deal with this, and a lot of progress has been made in Anbar. There's a long way to go in the provinces northeast of Baghdad, and other areas.

Retreat from Iraq would be followed by al Qaeda consolidating itself in those areas still open to it, and moving back into the rest of Iraq in force, aided by the sectarian violence that would break out. Others will stream into Afghanistan, in the certainty that we could be easily made to retreat from that nation for exactly the same reasons as we retreated from Iraq.

After our rout from Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda would move back into that nation in force. When next we have to go back in, it's not going to be pretty.

Democrats call retreating from a battlefield "ending the war," as though it will stop when we leave. This is delusion.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (63 posts)