« MoveOn.org smears Petraeus as "Betray Us" | Main | When Eric Cantor's interns attack »

September 10, 2007

Comments

"[B]ogus rhetoric"?!?!? This is the reference from the opinion piece:

"We must understand that today in Iraq we are fighting and defeating the same terrorist network that attacked on 9/11."

If our enemies in Iraq associate with and call themselves by the name of the organization that brought the terrorism of 9/11, our elected leaders have every right to point that out in their policy positions.

To further make the point, consider the worst case scenario where Al Qaeda in Iraq is triumphant. Is there any doubt that they would then direct some of, if not a lot of, Iraq's resources back to Al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan/Pakistan to support the larger global terrorism effort?

BTW, General Petraeus references "Al Qaeda" a total of 21 times in Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq:General David H. Petraeus
Commander, Multi-National Force-Iraq
10-11 September 2007
:

References like:

Page 1: "One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to Al Qaeda-Iraq. Though Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq remain dangerous, we have taken away a number of their sanctuaries and gained the initiative in many areas."

Page 2: "In the ensuing months, our forces and our Iraqi counterparts have focused on improving security, especially in Baghdad and the areas around it, wresting sanctuaries from Al Qaeda control, and disrupting the efforts of the Iranian-supported militia extremists."

Page 4: "Our operations have, in fact, produced substantial progress against Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq. As this chart shows, in the past 8 months, we have considerably reduced the areas in which Al Qaeda enjoyed sanctuary. We have also neutralized 5 media cells, detained the senior Iraqi leader of Al Qaeda-Iraq, and killed or captured nearly 100 other key leaders and some 2,500 rank-and-file fighters. Al Qaeda is certainly not defeated; however, it is off balance and we are pursuing its leaders and operators aggressively. Of note, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq explained, these gains against Al Qaeda are a result of the synergy of actions by: conventional forces to deny the terrorists sanctuary; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to find the enemy; and special operations elements to conduct targeted raids. A combination of these assets is necessary to prevent the creation of a terrorist safe haven in Iraq."

<,To further make the point, consider the worst case scenario where Al Qaeda in Iraq is triumphant. Is there any doubt that they would then direct some of, if not a lot of, Iraq's resources back to Al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan/Pakistan to support the larger global terrorism effort?>>

How about we just go after the monster instead of one of its tentacles? Justifying spending an inordinate amount of lives and resources in the fight against a minor threat is like spending days looking for dropped change by another streetlight because the light is better than where you dropped it. The point is, one of the reasons it's a bogus argument is because it's a slippery slope.

There are many of us who would like to see our resources used better to fight terrorism, not abandon it completely as the op-ed alludes.

The comments to this entry are closed.