Regardless of how wrong you think Bush was to go into Iraq, or if you think he did it to finish his daddy's business, or that he's a puppet of the Saudi royal family/Haliburton/whatever...

...maybe there is an unexpected benefit that was an unintended (or maybe intended) consequence of the Iraq invasion.

Kerry makes the point that US actions in Iraq have made it easier for terrorists to recruit more terrorists.  Maybe this isn't such a bad thing.  It gives anyone with a predisposition to be a terrorist a reason to take up arms.  They self-select themselves, as market researchers say.  They take up arms, and head for the great Jihad -- Iraq.  Where, coalition forces will eventually kill a good share of them.  A kind of social Darwinism in action.  (I anticipate someone saying that eventually half a billion Arabs will take up arms against the US.  Heck, that'll never happen.  Iraqi's can't even be bothered to fight on their OWN behalf.  Another point:

The benefit being that Iraq shifted the hot spot for Islamic radicals from places like NY and DC to a spot much closer to home:  their "backyard" so to speak, at least in the Arab world.  In other words, the US presence in Iraq has given young Arab radicals a cause more tangible to focus on - ejecting the Great Satan from an Arab land.  That's certainly more tangible from the perspective of a radical Sunni in Medina than plotting to take down skyscrapers half a world away.  Basra is a lot less abstract to young Arabs than the Citicorp building.  A few points:

THe mainstream media and many folks on this board talk about Iraq as a diversion from the real war on terrorism, as if we can't do both at the same time.  But maybe it's more of a diversion for the terrorists who are a lot less organized and well funded.  Diversion in the sense that they devote time/money/resources to kicking the U.S. out of Iraq.  Resources that may otherwise be used to kill civilians here.

I can almost see a valid rationale:  Faced with a hidden, nebulous, borderless enemy in the first war of the post nation-state world, what do you do?  Especially when the U.S. intelligence apparatus isn't worth sh*t and will take years more to fix.  What options are there?  In this sense, picking a fight with the enemy in a place close to their home and sucking them into it begins to make sense.  

Iraq is like those old roach killer commericials that used to be advertised on tv.  Iraq is like the Roach Motel.  The roaches check in, but they don't check out.  Okay, I'm done.  All the moveon.org guys can take it from here.

an interesting theory. And I give you kudos for more thought than you often put into posts.

But better to heal or prevent an infection than to allow it to fester in one locale.  The infection inevitably spreads.

And the deleterious effect on the US army?  Devastating.  A fine army, perhaps the best in the world, perhaps ever, is being bled white in a particularly depressing way, to little effect.

While I have hopes, there is slight possibility that this will be more disruptive to the army than VietNam.

Don't think they have stopped looking at targets in the U.S., either.  The recent intelligence says otherwise.

...so how would you heal or prevent the infection -- which I presume you mean to be radical Islamic terrorism.  I am really interested in ideas on this because all those I've heard so far are pie-in-the-sky utopianism with no practical real world relevence.

As for the debilitating effects on the US Army - is today's present-day Army a manifest of just 3 years of Shrub, or might the Oval Office's prior occupant have something to do with the draw-down of US forces?  Hmmmm?  

But my main point is:  How would you heal/prevent the infection?  What are you saying?  Terrorism is a social disease?  A more advanced form of social expression, like graffiti on a grander scale?  (hey, social diseases -- now THAT'S a topic many on this board have first hand experience with.  heehee)

The ongoing damage to the US Army in Iraq is real, and very troubling. As Sully notes, the situation may be worse for our army than Vietnam. Perhaps another analogy to our present debacle in Iraq is the debilitating occupation by the Soviet Army of Afghanistan, which contributed to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.

And for another view on how the Iraqi war is going, this time from a British reporter in the field, see the below link:

-- Modified on 8/4/2004 12:30:58 PM

Clinton never went on an adventure alone, nor did he ever do it without voluminous plans.

This infection lives in the streets of the muslim world.  It IS a form of expression.  Clausewitz- war is an extension of politics by other means.  No Democracies in the Arab World, so there is NO LOCAL politics to participate in and temper anybody's anger.

Look a Mexico.  Tons of problems- but no pressure to fix them as the voters who might get angry to the point of action are afforded a chance to go to US for a better life.  With that permananet pressure valve keeping pressure low- no real reform.

We need to get engaged with reforming these countries, suffering the pain we will feel as the process develops.  But our natural tendency to cut and run when we suffer any casulaties is so well known around the world, that we essentially invite attack, so confident can the terrs be of getting an effect.

The biggest step we need to take is to get over ourselves and embrace courage.  When I see any signs of it, I will let you know.

Starts out with:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The war is a fraud."

Now that is some objectionable reporting!  Think maybe this guy has an axe to grind?

With your concept that the US Army is suffering "ongoing dameage" and this is "very troubling", one would think that re-enlistment numbers would be down or in terrible peril.

They are not, re-enlistment is meeting and exceeding all of the militaries expectations.

What would discourage and deflate the troops would be the election of  Hanoi John Kerry, a worm who lied before congress about his comrades to furher his own political ambition,  That would damage the US Army and would be very troubling indeed.

Given the Economy, not that suprising that the Army is a choice for many kids.  Probably a good one. I know they are paying bonusses right now.

And the great thing about the army is that it survives and often fourishes whoever is in the white house.  

Thanks for the info that enlistment is OK, though.  We need more dudes in camo, and I am too decrepit to go....

I did say that the Robert Fisk reporting was "another" view - not necessarily the Pasteurized one that is being spoonfed to us by the George W. administration and the "embedded" US media.

Regardless of his editorial interpretations, I think Fisk's first hand observations of the Iraqi are of value. Especially since there are so few reporters in Iraq willing to venture outside of the 'green' zone.

Particularly of interest is Fisk's reporting on the battle-scarred Baghdad-to-Najaf highway that he just traveled over.  Just today (August 5, 2004), an American helicopter was shot down in Najaf, and there is intense fighting with Al-Sadr insurgents.

And as to how the US Army is faring these days in Iraq, I would cite the following:

Joseph Galloway (Knight-Ridder News Service, July 14, 2004):
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken the lives of nearly 1,000 American soldiers and Marines to date. They threaten to break utterly our Army and Marine Corps, not to mention the misused and overworked Reserve and National Guard units."

Retired Navy Capt. John Byron, in the July issue of Proceedings of the Naval Institute, writes: "The war in Iraq is wrecking the Army and the Marine Corps. Troop rotations are in shambles and the all-volunteer force is starting to crumble as we extend combat tours and struggle to get enough boots on the ground.

"We have broken our social contract with the members of the National Guard and the reserve forces, misusing them as substitutes for active forces in an open-ended operation in Iraq that is well short of national emergency. These backup forces are demoralized and headed for the door."

If the Iraqi situation continues to deteriorate and US support for this war further declines, one wonders how long it will be before recruitment quotas are not met.

And as to RLTW's "flypaper" theory cited below which suggests that we are trapping all the terrorists in Iraq, I would respond with an update of Churchill's famous quote: "Some flypaper, some fly".

-- Modified on 8/5/2004 7:56:34 AM

Specifically about lack of democracy in the arab world as a big part of the problem.  It is the root cause of why that part of the world lags behind -- it's a feudal society for all practical purposes. Except, the Islamo-facists don't want to replace the feudal society with democracy -- they want to replace it with a theocracy -- something just as oppressive.  Democracy can't flourish until the Islamic theocrats are put down and there's some distinction made between church and state.  You and I agree on the root problem and the solution.  We disagree on how to get there.  

As for taking the body blows to get the process started, I think that's what Iraq is.  Good concept.  Execution could be much better, however.  

As for Clinton never doing an adventure alone - I'll be an anomoly and resist that set-up for a joke.  Fact is, other than lobbing a few missles he never did an adventure.  To his credit, he got Europe to get off their asses with ethnic cleansing in their own backyard.  But ultimately a lot more people got cleansed because he didn't act as quickly, or as forcefully as he could have.  He didn't want to get too far out in front of Europe (as Bush has done), for fear of alienating some leaders there.  I wouldn't hold Clinton up as a visionary forceful leader.  He enjoyed a vacation from history and made the most of it.

I would not hold Clinton as a foreign policy president extrodinaire.  But compared to his successor- he's fuckin' FDR/Truman/Kennedy rolled into one!

At the time, I hated how he polled everything. And how he always sought partner buy in as a supplicant.  But we have seen how poorly going essentially alone (guy's I do recognise our allied efforts- but we could be so much better off with stronger partners) and not consulting anyone with a clue has gone.  A little humility from a country looking to right some wrongs would have been so much more effective.

Let's face it  Clinton was still a better Republican President than either of the Shrubs- and I liked Bush I!