Replies

This is utter nonsense. We are engaged in the beginning of a multiple-decade war against an unconventional opponent using asymmetrical means.

Indeed, the case can be made that we have already lost--I have made it repeatedly here. We invaded the wrong country, insisting on "nation building", while our covert enemies obtain aid and comfort in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. We have failed to secure our borders, take out the terrorist leaders and their supporters, or even make serious attempts to eliminate sleeper cells and moles on our territory.

Our chief of "Homeland (In)security" advocates amnesty for illegal aliens. We continue to issue visas to citizens of known terrorist nations; continue to educate them in our colleges and universities.

We are in deep denial. Eventually the reality will confront us again--when the Sears Tower comes down, or the Golden Gate bridge is demolished.

--Boris

> ... our covert enemies obtain aid and comfort in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. ... We are in deep denial. Eventually the reality will confront us again--when the Sears Tower comes down, or the Golden Gate bridge is demolished.

Don't forget, French arms
have been used in Iraq, and
French "journalists" have

made no secret of
traveling with Iraqis...
If Germany and

France are actively
supporting bad guys, this war
then looks even worse

than if we're only
in denial about "friends"
in the Middle East...

Boris, you are quite right, and the battle will go on for a long time. But that does not mean a critical point will be reached in 04 both here and in Iraq. Iraqis are even now trying to decide whether they want to support the coalition or Sadam's waning forces. There is fear, because they are not sure who will win. But as they become sure they will join us in greater numbers. Will terrorist attacks stop? Have they stopped in the US? The answer is that terrorist attacks will stop when people wake up and see dead terrorists lying in the street, the result of our special ops forces doing them in in the night.

Whether we ultimately have lost or not is also still up in the air. We are fighting the rise of Islam and it can only take a terrorist form of battle. Until we realize that we must fight it at its level, we will have setbacks.

Boris, I agree with practically all your points, especially on the "home front". "Invading the wrong country" is disputable. My understanding is while Bush was willing to go alone, nevertheless he was trying to get some kind of international support as well. A country under UN sanctions and a known felon looked like a better candidate for consensus than any other. What he underestimated is how far other major powers and American Leftists are going to go in obstructing US efforts regardless of morality and merits of this effort. We are blamed for the unilateralism anyway and are called empire doesn't matter what we do, so we could as well act like one.

Another troubling point was and is the oil supply. In Iraq, at least, we have a potential of sympathetic populace, nothing like that can be expected from the Saudi Arabia. While there are options how Iraqi oil can be dealt with, there is no options with Saudi Arabia. To secure their oil we'd need just take over the oil fields straight up. You can find support for such actions here on FR, but in the real politics, its problematic. We might end up doing just that, but you can't start with it.

VDH said many times that this is a long struggle. Here he says that a turning point maybe around the corner. So, he is trying to be more optimistic today. Where he is indisputably right, is in the history of people following the winners. All Nazi sympathizers kind of melted away after the WWII. Not that their sympathies changed all of a sudden, but they stopped acting on them. Projecting a victorious power is very helpful in the war effort. Even if it doesn't win outright converts, it freezes in inaction those who would follow the enemy.