1 Heh. Truce, yeah, right. Maybe if Dhimmi Carter was still President. Double heh.

2 Hudna.

3 "1. The US effort in Iraq is a "disaster" for the US, and only serves to antagonize the locals." I think the press has been trying to insinuate this, but they are helped greatly by the fact that bad news is simply more interesting to the public. If you run two Iraq articles on the front page, one about a marine pistol-whipping a wounded insurgent and the other about our engineers repairing Baghdad's electrical network, the former is going to make more of an impression even though it has far less significance "2. US troop morale is terrible" Civilians don't know what morale is, so you can never trust what the papers have to say on the subject. No one has offered evidence that morale in the military sense--willingness to perform their mission--is in a bad way. When our troops start refusing to patrol, that's a morale problem. "3. If the US leaves, abandoning its imperialistic ways, the turmoil in the Islamic world will eventually resolve itself. It's only our intervention that keeps things stirred up." That's another thing they try to insinuate. The notion that simply being there inspires them to shoot at us is sensible enough (after all, doesn't patrolling crime-ridden neighborhoods in the U.S. lead to cop killings?), but I think everyone's stopped short of saying that the Sunnis would decide to play nice if we left. "4. The Bush administration is lying to Americans, both about the condition of the war and about their own intentions. The majority of Americans now agree with this assessment and want to skedaddle." Governments generally are less than scrupulous in making a case for going to war. The WMD thing hasn't helped legitimize the present war, but it has sown more distrust among the press than with the public. If public support did not erode with time it would be the first time in U.S. history, but no one has shown that this effect is more pronounced in the present fight due to distrust of the president. "5. The US has split its resources, allowing Al Qaeda to become stronger in Afghanistan as well as Iraq." In point of fact we have split our resources, but that's not the same as saying that we don't have enough to go around. Saying the former implies the latter implies the latter if your audience isn't inclined to look for details like troop strengths and the fact that we're not using the same kinds of units in those two countries. "6. The primary beneficiaries of the US war in the Middle East are the Halliburtonesque war profiteers and the oil capitalists." Well, who else would benefit? Bath Iron Works benefitted from WW2 but they weren't profiteers. Papers have been throwing up Halliburton's lucritive deals because of its connection with Cheney, which looks crooked to a lot of people but I don't know of anyone outside of the fringe that has gone so far as to suggest that he engineered the war to enrich himself. Personally, I'm suspicious of a family that owns oil properties when it drives the price of crude through the roof (twice) but I have yet to see the mainstream call them on this.

4 For those without Dr. Shackleford's extensive etymological knowledge: HUDNA - Arabic word often translated as "cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition. -- The Israel Project This is almost certainly Al Qaeda's intent, but there isn't going to be any cease fire, at least from our side. They're welcome to stop shooting, of course. That way we can establish a democratic Middle East more or less unimpeded. Heh.

5 Shannon made some good points, but this one kind of rubbed me the wrong way: "6. The primary beneficiaries of the US war in the Middle East are the Halliburtonesque war profiteers and the oil capitalists." Well, who else would benefit? It's more like "Who wouldn't benefit?" The two big losers, it seems to me, are the western marxisant left and extant totalitarian movements like Al Qaeda and the Bathists. Just about everyone else benefits, and if you believe Wretchard's "third conjecture" Islam itself is saved from extinction. But of course I know you meant in direct economic terms. Even there, though, entrepreneurial activity in the Arab world is probably benefitted and the market nexus there will almost certainly expand. It's actually hard to think of anyone who will lose other than those who lose their lives in the struggle (and better the enemy than us). In the long run even the Sunni Triangle will benefit.

6 This is very true, Demosophist. What I wonder is if it even occurred to OBL that since this has all begun that any of us might familiarize ourselves with the Koran and Muslim history and with that knowledge realize that he is full of sh*t. I know I've learned more about it than I ever expected to. Anyone who has read anything about Islam, pre-9/11, has seen a stark difference between what information was available then and what's available now. I have.

7 I think most contracts in WWII were cost plus. I remember that during the Vietnam conflict the Congress voted in a windfall profits tax. Also Shannon I do not think the American public's support eroded during the last declared war, WWII. When the polls are split 50-50 it is difficult to really prosecute any war, except perhaps a civil war. lol

8 Regarding the evidence to support the invasion of Iraq, there were basically two kinds of people; those who needed little or no convincing, and those who were against it no matter what the evidence. The former want victory at any price because we know the consequences of defeat, and the latter now want defeat at any price, because they can't stand the thought of the consequences of winning, i.e. a stronger American presence and legitimacy in the world. Liberals are nothing but traitors to humanity because they're willing to sacrifice the freedom of the entire world as long as it means the defeat of America and George W. Bush. They are idiots and should all be shot.

9 Max: Liberals are nothing but traitors to humanity because they're willing to sacrifice the freedom of the entire world as long as it means the defeat of America and George W. Bush. They are idiots and should all be shot. Well, in general you don't shoot idiots; you shoot criminals. I mean, if you shoot anyone. I actually think they're crazy rather that idiotic, and they're chiefly crazy because we haven't given them a task to perform, or a role to play. I have a hunch that the next US president will remedy that to some degree, if it's who I think it will be. Idle hands are the Devil's playground.

10 Ugh, Demosophist, the last time the hands of the liberals got busy they tried to do everything from nationalizing the health care system to total disarmament of the citizenry. I like their sick little minds blogging and pontificating about everything that is wrong in Iraq. I will be very happy for them to continue doing this while they are outside looking in.