Hamas at odds with Al Qaeda?

It is incredible just how unpopular Al Qaeda has become. Even Hamas, another Islamic terror organization, now seems at odds with them. Al Qaeda had recently criticized Hamas for taking part in elections (which are supposedly secular non-Islamic things). Hamas responded:

"We are a movement that neither brands other Muslims as infidels, nor abandons them. We are a movement that lives with the people in a real world and try to attract them to Islam through wisdom and good advice."

"We call for following God's path with an open mind," al-Zahar said. "By adopting this moderate approach, which is initiated by the prophet (Muhammad), Hamas movement has succeeded in attracting voters to its programme of Islam."

Ouch. Not that I'm very fond of Hamas; I'll still consider them to be a gang of thugs until they renounce violence and recognize Israel. But, I like them a bit more than bin Laden's group.

More double standards

Come on, is Europe really going to jail someone for Holocaust denial?

The guy is an idiot, but he shouldn't be imprisoned for it. With double standards like these, its really hard for Europeans to justify the publishing of the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

Christian double standards.

Nigeria has a population that is roughly split between Christians and Muslims. After the Danish Cartoon fiasco, many Muslims in Nigeria began rioting. Over a dozen churches were burnt down, and about as many Christians were murdered by Muslim mobs.

Well, the Christians have retaliated. They began by burning Mosques, but murder soon followed. Christians have murdered dozens of Muslims in Nigeria so far (and vice versa). As the cycle of violence continues, the leader of the Nigerian Christians had this to say:

"may we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation" and that "C.A.N. [Christian Association of Nigeria] may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue"

This Christian leader is threatening to have his followers form lawless mobs that can vandalize and murder at the drop of a hat. Odd, I don't remember reading about that in the New Testament. Christians throughout the world should be condemning this violence to the utmost. They are so quick to condemn Muslims when they are violent. What kind of message is that sending, if they hold such double standards?

I think the lesson here is that the religious leaders on both sides equally suck. Human nature is the same, and being a Muslim or a Christian doesn't change that. Christians have a long storied history of violence (probably moreso than Muslims, actually). The only reason the West isn't as bad anymore is because it is so secular. Blah. I'm just in a bad mood because I'm hungry.

Message to the UN: Stop pretending to have principles.

One of the UN's founding principles is to prevent genocide. Obviously, the UN failed miserably in Rwanda (1994), and its bureaucrats swore "never again". As it turns out, that didn't mean they would intervene to prevent a future genocide. Rather, they simply wouldn't utter the g-word at the UN; if they did they would be legally bound to stop the genocide. This was the UN "solution" to the Sudan crisis a year ago.

Unfortunately, it just got worse. 200,000 civilians have already been killed, and the crisis has spread into neighboring Chad. This time around, the UN has promised to do what it was created to do:

"The United Nations Security Council has agreed to send troops to protect civilians, but they will take months to arrive."

Pending the imminent failure of the delayed UN response to accomplish anything of significance, we might continue wondering how we can really improve life in Africa. Well, I don't believe in being cynical without offering solutions, so here is one that I strongly advocate.

In 1989 there was a private mercenary company that was formed in South Africa called "Executive Outcomes". One example of their accomplishments was their being hired by the government of Sierra Leone to restore order in their country. For 20 million dollars/year, Executive Outcomes sent a force of 300 mercenaries (who had a combined battle experience of 5000 years or so). This force quickly pushed the rebels back into a corner of the country, restoring order. Elections were then able to take place.

The UN threw a fit and pushed Sierra Leone to cancel their contract with Executive Outcomes, and sent in a UN peacekeeping force in its place. The UN force was 18,000 strong, and costed 1 billion/year to maintain "order". According to Wikipedia, here is what the UN peacekeepers accomplished:

In terms of effectiveness, the UN peacekeeping force allowed the RUF to retake the capital twice while committing atrocities in its wake, and also stood helpless while a military coup led by Colonel Johnny Paul Koroma deposed the democratically elected Kabbah.

A private mercenary company, for 2% of the cost, was able to accomplish what the UN could not.

I know there will be concerns about having such powerful private enterprises in existence. It would be unsettling to think that a private company could overthrow small governments. However, legalized mercenary companies could easily be held in check. Mercenary companies such as EO could be required to act only under UN authorization. They could be banned from having weapons of mass destruction, and other powerful weapons of war. Other checks could be in place that would prevent a mercenary company from ever abusing its power.

The bottom line is that the UN needs some teeth. The problem with the UN is that it is inefficient and that it held in check by politics. Even when the UN does send military units, the soldiers from a given country are under that nation's control, and not under UN control. Further, there are political costs to UN intervention. For example, Americans don't want to see the bodies of American soldiers dragged through the streets, as in Somolia.

The only solution that I can see for the serious problems that Africa faces is to allow mercenary companies to operate under UN sanction. These private forces are cheaper and more effective. Further, they would not be constrained by the politics of command and logistics that the UN armed forces face. Finally, the UN would not be concerned with the political strains associated with loss of life for the soldiers. Mercenaries would be hired to restore order and allow elections to take place. If mercenaries are killed, people aren't really going to mind.

The Rwandan genocide was perpetrated by men armed with machetes and small arms. The Darfur genocide is being perpetrated by armed men riding camels. The solution is not to send in neutered UN forces at great cost to try to restore order. The solution is to hire a highly trained private company to go in under UN authority. These forces would make short work of the genocidal maniacs rampaging throughout the land, with none of the costs; monetary or political, associated with a UN force.

The principles of the UN oppose the use of armed mercenaries. Well, the UN is also principally opposed to genocide. Its time for the UN to get its priorities straight.

"Baghdad Burning"

An Iraqi blogger's account of the situation.

"No one went to work today as the streets were mostly closed. The situation isn’t good at all. I don’t think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There’s so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan…

People are scared and watchful. We can only pray."

Rallying the Believers

Iraq's Grand Ayatolla Sistani is organizing a sectarian militia.

The purpose of the militia will be to protect Shiite holy sites, which have been under attack for the last several days. This move seems particularly out of character to me. Not once in the last two years have I ever read of Sistani even mentioning the use of physical force as a means to accomplish an objective. He has been as committed to nonviolence as Ghandi was. Further, Juan Cole seems to think that there is great risk in the establishment of militias, because they inevitably end up catalyzing more conflict than they prevent; I'm sure most Iraqis know this.

The most powerful force preventing an Iraqi civil war up to now (Sistani) has just made a tactical 180 degree turn. I don't find that to be very encouraging.

Iraq is cracking.

Shrine Bombing.

Someone has bombed what is probably the holiest Shia shrine in Iraq. The best comparison that I've read is that it would be like a Protestant bombing St. Peters in Rome. Al Qaeda is the usual suspect. Most of their objectives for Iraq have failed. The Iraqi people hate them, most Muslims in the Middle East have started to deplore their actions, they haven't driven the Americans out, and they haven't stopped the political process.

The only thing Al Qaeda has had any success in is their attempt to provoke a civil war. It hasn't worked yet, thanks to the Shia Grand Ayatolla Sistani, who has so far restrained his followers from responding. But I have to question whether even Sistani has enough influence to prevent a civil war after these latest events.

If Iraq can get through this in one piece, it can get through anything. Heres hoping.

Why is this news?

There are two explanations for the Cheney incident. Either the Vice President purposefully shot a 78 year old fellow Republican and friend, or it was an accident. There was no duel, so I'm going to go with the latter theory. Who cares how the news was released? People are acting like there was some conspiracy to cover the incident up. Why would he need one? It was an accident.

Maybe if certain groups of people spent their time actually coming up with real solutions to our problems, rather than blowing irrelevant incidents completely out of proportion, they might win more elections. Just a thought.

Game over for Al Qaeda in Iraq

The local population evidently doesn't appreciate it when you murder their leader. Ramadi, in the Sunni-Arab dominated Anbar province, has been a major stronghold for the insurgency. Al Qaeda in Iraq, led by Zarqawi, had much of the support of the locals up until lately. After killing local Sunni police recruits, and now their revered leader, the locals have had enough. They are turning on Al Qaeda. This doesn't guarentee that they will seek peace with the Iraqi government or America, but it certainly makes it more likely.

The Boston Globe doesn't get it

The Boston Globe recently ran an editorial concerning the Muhammed cartoons. The final paragraph:

"Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Ku Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages."

The cartoons are offensive? You dont say! That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that we should be allowed to express an opinion without the fear of violent reprisal. If I drew and published Nazi-like caricatures of Jews, that would make me an asshole. However, I could still do it without fear of being attacked or killed in response. I find it ironic that the left has been making this huge fuss about Bush infringing on our freedoms lately, yet they are condemning the European newspapers for publishing these cartoons. Evidently, the freedom of speech is less important than the freedom to make international phone calls to terrorists without being wiretapped.

The threat of violence is becoming ever greater as well. These images from a protest in London are extremely disturbing to me. Some of the phrases on the protestors' signs read, "Be prepared for the real holocaust", "Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is coming", and "Exterminate those who slander Islam". Seriously, who says these sorts of things?

There is no way that the West can back down on this issue. To do so would imply to those fanatics who distort Islam that massive threats of violence and protest will push the West to do anything. It is a slippery slope that we cannot start down. They can be oppressive and overly sensitive in their own cultures if they want, but they shouldn't be telling us how to act.

The US State Department issued a response. The US is condemning the cartoonists. Ideologically, I am strongly opposed to this statement, but strategically I am regretfully supportive. The US is deeply involved with four Muslim nations/groups right now; we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and negotiating with Iran and Hamas. Each of these precarious situations seems to be on a knife's edge. I'd hate to see this cartoon controversy push each of those situations over the bad side.

Andrew Sullivan posted a reader comment that I found comforting as well:

The State Department's comment on the Danish cartoons was brilliant. This is a European problem and we owe Europe nothing. The comment a) gave us a small chance to look good to Muslims (even if the comment was admittedly bullshit) b) allowed the focus of the anger to remain on the Europeans which will only reinforce the truth that Islamic extremism is a threat to the entire West, not just the United States and c) frankly, it was a nice "fuck you" to Europe. I LOVED it. Of course, given that it was the State Department, they probably had none of these things in mind, but hey, whatever.

A final thing I wanted to mention is this growing awareness that there are three particularly insulting cartoons that appeared out of nowhere. For example, one of them shows Muhammed involved in a sexual act with an animal. None of these three mysterious comics was drawn by the Danish cartoonists, yet they are being widely circulated around the Middle East with the original 12 Danish cartoons. I wonder where they came from? Who would benefit from such extremely insulting comics being included in the controversy? Perhaps, a group that wants to see the drama escalate into a clash of civilizations. Right-wing elements in Europe and Al Qaeda both have that goal...my bet is that an extremist group, potentially on either side, is behind them.

Hands off my Wikipedia!!

Now Wikipedia is being pushed to censor their entry concerning the Danish Prophet Muhammad cartoons. Wikipedia is perhaps my favorite website, and I'll be damned if its going to start getting censored by people who take life way too seriously. This will be a two part piece; I want to briefly support Muslims first, and the West second.

1) Where the Muslims went right:

It is already considered bad to depict the Prophet visually; to draw a cartoon that is making a mockery of him would be a slap in the face. In this sense, I understand the anger of Muslims worldwide who are infuriated that their Prophet is being slandered. Certainly, this isn't something that they are used to seeing. I would expect more consideration and tact from the Danes.

Parts of the Muslim response are acceptable to me. If the offense is so great, then the leaders of Muslim countries can recall their ambassadors from Denmark until the Danes stop insulting the Prophet. This of course has already happened with Lybia, Pakistan, and a couple others. It is certainly a reasonable option, although I personally think its a bit much.

In my opinion, organizing a boycott (started in Saudi Arabia) was a great idea and I encourage that sort of behavior. The language of the West is economics. If you don't like what someone says or does, you hit them where it hurts - the wallet. I've read that the boycott has been extremely effective. If it was to continue, domestic economic pressure might force the newspaper to apologize and refrain from insulting the Prophet in the future.

2) Where the Muslims went really really wrong:

My first big problem with part of the Muslim response is that they are demanding hate-speech legislation that would prevent such action in the future. Let me say that again. The Muslims in the Middle East want hate speech to be outlawed. Does this strike anyone else as extremely hypocritical? Where is the outrage when a Muslim leader calls for the eradication of Israel? Or is that not hate speech? What about when Jews are referred to as pigs, and Americans are referred to as dogs? It amazes me that they would presume to tell us who we can and cannot insult, when they certainly don't pull any punches regarding a group they dislike.

My second problem with the Muslim response is the most important. I take issue very much with the threats of violence that have been issued towards those that have insulted Islam. Some of these threats have been followed up by actual violence. I don't care what the cartoon depicted, you absolutely do not threaten people, not in the West, for having an opinion. You can threaten us because we support Israel, or because we install corrupt dictators to further our interests. Threaten us because we invaded Iraq, or bombed civilians in Pakistan. But do not threaten us for having an opinion. Attacking our (alleged) imperialist tendencies is one thing, but directly attacking our freedom of speech is quite something else.

The Europeans agree with me. Newspapers all around Europe are re-printing the cartoons out of spite, to prove that they will not be intimidated.

My conclusions? Had those in the Middle East pursued a purely diplomatic and/or economic route, I would completely side with them and also call for the Danes to be more considerate. Unfortunately, I cannot take that position. I will not take that position, because I don't want those few Muslims who have threatened or perpetuated violence to think their methods at all worked. I want the message to those in the world who would act in violence to be clear - we will not be intimidated into silence, not now, not ever.

Iran to the Security Council

Russia and China have agreed to send Iran to the security council. I am excited to see the international community come to a consensus that will hopefully help keep the world safer. Yet, this whole drama isn't over. The international community needs the will to impose the kind of strict economic sanctions that will really hurt the Iranians. Unfortunately, those are also the kinds of sanctions that will hurt the rest of the world - an Iranian oil embargo will drive prices way up.

The world needs to choose between sky high energy prices, perhaps causing an international economic recession, or letting a religious fanatic acquire nukes. Kinda makes one wish we weren't so dependent on oil? Maybe thats something we should keep working on.

It probably didn't help the Iranian cause that the rest of the world just found damning evidence that Iran is pursuing nukes. Some people, amazingly, have expressed doubts as to whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; I hope this clears things up for them.

Hamas bites off more than it can chew.

An interesting perspective that I saw on TV over the last weekend was the suggestion that perhaps Hamas didn't really want to win a majority in this election. Rather, it is more likely that they sought to win a significant number of seats, but not enough that they would be leading the government. With Fatah still leading the government, Hamas could run its big mouth, criticizing Fatah and Israel while not having to back up anything it said politically.

Fortunately, Hamas did win a majority. And my word usage here is quite deliberate - I believe this election outcome will ultimately be a good thing. Most Palestinians want the peace process to move forward, but it seems that Israel (rightfully) is not going to have any exchange with a government that seeks its destruction. Additionally, the international community is going to slow or cease aid altogether, without which the Palestinians will not survive. Hamas has even started begging for that money.

The bottom line, is that by winning a majority, Hamas will be confronted with a major dilemma. In either case, the West and Israel will be better off, although the Palestinians will be better off only in one scenario. Ideally, Hamas would choose to renounce terrorism and decide to recognize Israel's right do exist. By doing these things, international aid would continue and the peace process would move forward. If there was any question as to whether giving up on violence would be the best for the Palestinians, this move would make it obvious.

On the other hand, Hamas could choose to continue to utilize terrorism and cling to their platform of seeking the destruction of Israel. If Hamas chooses this route, the flow of money to the Palestinians dries up quickly, and the peace process ceases. The Palestinians will suffer, and everyone will know who is responsible. The credibility of their methods diminished, Hamas would predictably be beaten by Fatah in the next election.

Don't get too hopeful that Hamas will choose the route that benefits everyone, though. What more concerns the Hamas leadership: the well-being of the Palestinians, or the destruction of Israel? My money is unfortunately on the latter. I pity the Palestinian people, as they will be the ones who suffer as a result.

"The power to walk away"

A great article on the current political situation in Iraq can be found here. The first and last paragraphs say it all:

America's agile envoy in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, is working these days to cajole Iraqi political leaders to put aside narrow interests in favor of a government of national unity. But behind the political dickering lies a stark message: If the Iraqis can't agree on a broad-based government of reconciliation, the United States may have to reduce its military and economic support. America won't bankroll one side in a civil war...

...Khalilzad's message is that America's money and patience aren't unlimited. If the Iraqis can come together to build a framework for cooperation, America stands with them. If they can't pull together, they will eventually have to face the nightmare of a shattered Iraq on their own. Ironically, that's America's hidden leverage in Iraq -- the power to walk away.

Juan Cole has said that the Shia believe that they can handle the security situation without us. I hope he is wrong. It will be an ugly civil war if the Iraqis do not compromise politically.

Even though I am glad that Grand Ayatolla Sistani mostly stays out of politics, I think it would be a great time for him to step in and urge the UIA to grant the Sunnis some political concessions.

Ugly.

"...Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on a two-day visit to Syria, was holding a "terrorism summit" with President Bashar al-Assad.

During his visit to Damascus, Ahmadinejad pledged support for militant Palestinian factions at a meeting with their leaders on Friday, a Palestinian group said. Leaders from Islamic Jihad and Hamas were present.

Hamas, which is also sworn to Israel's destruction, is expected to make a strong showing against Abbas's Fatah movement in the election."

This from reuters.

There was a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, Israel last week. Islamic Jihad, which (like Hamas) is sworn to Israel's destruction, claimed responsibility. The President of Iran just met with members of both terrorist groups, pledging his support. So not only has Ahmedinejad outright called for the eradication of Israel, but he has publicly claimed support for terrorist groups with that very goal.

Could you imagine our response if Ahmedinejad called for the destruction of the USA and met with Osama bin Laden a month later? Israel clearly would be morally justified in a military strike against Iran, which it seems that they are preparing. I'm convinced that we should help them, if not do it by ourselves. It is a dilemma; I don't want to see the US get involved in hostilities with another Islamic country; our reputation is bad enough. However, just because we've recently made mistakes in foreign policy does not mean that we should ignore the next real threat that comes along.

In a related story, Moqtada al Sadr pledged his support for Iran in the event of a US attack. Al Sadr is a Shia religious leader who led an uprising against the US a couple years ago; he commands a large militia. It would appear that our hands are tied with regards to Iran, because if we attack Iran, al Sadr will launch attacks on US forces.

I still say we attack Iran if it comes to that, though. Al Sadr is not very senior and could be contained by other Shia political and/or religious leaders (Sistani). We can simply tell the Shia: if al Sadr launches an uprising then the US will withdraw all of its troops from Iraq. The Shia know that if that happened, their new government would be eaten alive by the Sunni rebels, so it would be in their best interest to contain al Sadr.

bin Laden wants a truce?

"In response to the substance of the polls in the U.S., which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to."

I know this sounds familiar! Once upon a time, a fanatic bent on world domination wanted a truce. What happened after he got it?

Oh, now I remember.

Some people are suggesting (Scott McCellan) that this is a last act of desperation on bin Laden's part. I disagree; I think hes doing this because he knows he has the capability to attack us very soon. Hes going to offer us a truce, which he knows we won't accept, and then hes going to attack us somewhere. Its going to appear to many as if bin Laden somehow possesses the ability to attack us anywhere at will. Creating that perception is probably his intention. Obviously, he doesn't have that ability. This newest threat, if it materializes, has probably been 3-4 years in the making.

Perhaps he is convinced that Americans will respond in the same way that the Spanish did after the train bombings. If that is his assumption, he is wrong - I think we all know how Americans respond to threats and/or violence.

"Our mujahedeen were able to overcome all the security measures in European countries, and you saw their operation in major European capitals" -- apparent references to July's transit bombings in London and the 2004 train attacks in Madrid, Spain.

What security measures in European countries?

"Your President Bush has been misleading you. He has lied when he said that the people are behind him. Opinion polls have indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want him to pull the troops out of our land."

"We have the answer to [this] misleading information. The situation in Iraq is getting worse for you, and the dead and the injured among you is on the rise," the voice on the tape said."

Our troubles in Iraq have relatively little to do with bin Laden. In fact, Al Qaeda has helped our cause in Iraq probably more than it has hurt it. The subject of Al Qaeda has been one that all Iraqis - Sunni, Shia, and Kurd have agreed upon; they all hate it. Al Qaeda can hardly claim Iraq as a victory; even after an American departure there is no way Al Qaeda will gain control of that country.

Iran wants to start talking, again. I'm not sure we want to listen.

After Iran broke the IAEA seals on its nuclear research plants a week ago, the EU3 declared that the diplomatic exchanges with Iran were "dead". Just recently, an Iranian official sent those EU nations a letter asking for the talks to be re-started. Evidently, the prospect of UN sanctions didn't sound as fun to some clear headed Iranians as it did to Ahmedinejad. It appears that the international community has tired of playing Iran's games:

"Major powers have dismissed Iran's call for the European Union to resume talks on Tehran's nuclear stand-off with the West."

It really isn't just the west that doesn't want to see Iran with nukes. Its literally everyone else in the world, perhaps except Syria. The Saudis, Qatar, and other gulf states have even urged Iran to stop seeking nuclear technology. Russia appears to be ready to act against Iran in the Security Council should the need arise. The only questionable at this point seems to be China, but I don't see them acting alone on such an obviously important issue.

Russia has the right idea. If Iran wants to start talking again, it needs to first cease all nuclear research.

Iran has also threatened to stop selling oil to the rest of the world if sanctions are imposed on it. Sounds like a nice economic weapon paper, but reality isn't so simple. Tehran needs oil revenue just as much as we need the oil. The Iranian government wouldn't last a year without oil revenue under UN sanctions.

The Economist on Abortion

Recently, there was a great editorial in the Economist regarding abortion. The Economist suggests that the Democratic party is making a mistake by clinging to abortion as a central platform. Instead, they should drop the issue, and let it be solved by a public referendums or the like. Since the public is by majority supportive of abortion rights, such a popular vote would not result in abortion bans, except maybe partial-birth abortions. A choice quote from the article:

Relying on judges to advance the liberal agenda allowed conservatives to seize the mantle of populism. Roe has given Republicans a free ride: they can claim to oppose abortion in the comfortable knowledge that it will never be banned. But imagine if Roe were overturned. How many Republicans would vote for a ban on abortion that only one in five Americans support?

...History is full of great generals who won their wars by staging strategic retreats. Field-Marshal Kutusov allowed Napoleon to occupy Moscow, tempting him to over-extend himself. The Democrats might emulate that aged Russian's wiliness—and stage a strategic retreat to the high ground of popular opinion.

It makes sense to me. I'm really not so worried about the success of the Democratic party here. I'm just sick and tired of the endless debate; it is devisive and going nowhere fast. Lets get a new cause, people.

Belafonte, Iran

"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says..."

Wow. How do people like Belafonte not realize that they are undermining their own movement? Via the Patriot Act, Bush has removed a few civil liberties; apparently that makes him a tyrant. FDR imprisoned American Japanese citizens in internment camps during WW2, but I don't hear any democrats calling FDR a tyrant. It really annoys me that some arrogant, rich artist that has enjoyed every possible fruit and benefit of capitalism is off in a hostile communist country telling the people there that Americans support the revolution. I do not support the communist revolution, thank you very much.

In better news, we can thank Iran's President Ahmadinejad for this. All five of the permanent UN security council members are backing warnings to impose sanctions on Iran if it doesn't cooperate. When is the last time that France, China, and Russia all supported the US on a single issue? This development is a relief. I was especially concerned that we wouldn't be able to draw in China's support due to oil bribes from Iran; I'm glad that the Chinese see the importance of this action.

Bremer?

I'm not convinced that he is as innocent as he is making himself out to be, but here is an interesting piece.

You know, the need for more troops should have been obvious to anyone; it shouldn't have required some consultancy firm to figure it out. In the first Gulf War, we had 600,000 troops (about 500k US and 100K from other countries), roughly four times the amount of troops we have today. We went and occupied an Arab Muslim country in the heart of the middle east, and we didn't think some of the population might not be cool with that? We didn't think the Sunnis would be opposed to democratic elections?

I think one of the most frustrating things about this entire war is the fact that it would have turned out well if we'd done it right. Look at the progress we've made despite only having 150,000 troops, no plan for an insurgency, and an inept Secretary of Defense. I wonder where we would be if we'd came prepared?