Quit Iraq to Save the Republic?

[Michael Tee]

from today's Juan Cole website -

<<The longer we stay in Iraq, the more likely it is that it will produce another attack on the US mainland. [This para follows the point that mujahideen from the Iraqi Resistance struggle have moved into Pakistan to teach the locals the finer points of fighting the imperialists and their collaborators and puppets.]  Since important elements of the US political, military and corporate elite are apparently not actually much interested in democracy, another such attack might provide the heavies with a pretext to do away with it in practice (the Putin model), whatever trimmings they retain. Former CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks once suggested as much.

<<So getting out of Iraq might be the only way to save the Republic.>>

I'm not familiar with the Tommy Franks quote, if indeed there is one.  But the concept is interesting in theory.  Personally, I think that al Qaeda (using the term generically) is not likely to repeat it's hole-in-one of Sept. 11 anytime soon, but there is definitely a lot more interest in the project generated by the occupations of Iraq and the West Bank than would otherwise be the case.  I admit my primary reason for believing this is just common sense, not some Gallup Poll where "five out of seven suicide bombers give U.S. and Israeli oppression as their main reason for their choice of vocation, as opposed to the 1.3  who say they are are just in it for the virgins."  I believe it's only natural to want revenge for tortured and/or murdered family and friends, and revenge on a big scale must be a lot more fulfilling than revenge on a small scale.  There's an awful lot of victims left in the U.S. and Israeli wakes, and that's an awful lot of revenge seekers.

[Plane]

"I think that al Qaeda (using the term generically) is not likely to repeat it's hole-in-one of Sept. 11 anytime soon,..."

Why not?

What changed?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why not?  [Why can't al Qaeda score a second hole-in-one?]

<<What changed?>>

Well, hole-in-one was probably the wrong metaphor.  Sucker-punch was more like it. 

Because generally speaking you can't sucker-punch the same guy twice.  Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.  Not that they won't stop trying.  But I think their crowning moment has come and gone.  They won't get a second chance against that level of negligence and incompetence.  Even the Bush administration has to learn something from its mistakes.

[Plane]

<<Why not?  [Why can't al Qaeda score a second hole-in-one?]

<<What changed?>>

Well, hole-in-one was probably the wrong metaphor.  Sucker-punch was more like it. 

Because generally speaking you can't sucker-punch the same guy twice.  Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.  Not that they won't stop trying.  But I think their crowning moment has come and gone.  They won't get a second chance against that level of negligence and incompetence.  Even the Bush administration has to learn something from its mistakes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18817546/


Oh man I seriously wish you were right , but you are not .
The 9-11 attack was not the first attempt at a multiple aircraft Hijacking nor was it the last ,  the 9-11 attack was not the first attempt to bomb the twin towers nor the first Al Queda attack in the Washington area.

The Bush Administration fianally did the right thing and took the war to them , but this is after many teaching instances that were wasted.

Much of the public has forgotten what was learned , but Al Queda is still ready to teach us .

[Michael Tee]

<<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18817546/>>

<<Oh man I seriously wish you were right [that al Qaeda shot its bolt, it's past its glory days]  but you are not .>>

Sorry plane, that article you linked to was pure crap.  I could only follow about two pages of it, but it was such garbage that I didn't bother to read the last two.  I tried to summarize the first two pages, with some snarky commentary of my own, and here they are:

1.  al Qaeda is still talkin  trash (“America has the watches . . . .”) which says absolutely nothing about their capabilities to repeat 911 or its new equivalent.
2.  al Qaeda has re-organized itself and has a new “business model” (BFD)
3.  a question is asked:  has al Qaeda been forced to postpone its attacks on the West?  A question to which the experts cannot agree on the answer, so . . .  it remains just that, a question.


4.  - -  <<Four NBC News military and counter-terrorism analysts, including Cressey, along with other experts, disagree on the many of the answers.> >- -

TRANSLATION:   â€œWho the fuck knows anything anyway?”

5.  Al Qaeda is “doing well” [whatever THAT means] on the Pakistan-Afghan border.  Now THAT is totally hilarious.  I mean, is there any location on the face of the earth that could possibly be more remote or more inconsequential to the people of the U.S.A.?  Next thing we’ll hear is that they’re doing spectacular on the far side of the moon.  But wait - - wasn’t the 9-11 sucker-punch plotted in Afghanistan?  Answer: sure; but a sucker punch like that could be plotted from anywhere on the face of the earth.  If the U.S.A. needs to secure the Afghan-Pakistani border to stop sucker-punch plots, there’s no place on the face of the earth it DOESN’T need to secure.

6.  Some bombs were set off, some plots were foiled, some people were arrested.  And the Lebanese police are fighting an Islamist group - - the total membership of which, the article neglects to mention, being about 300 - -  near Tripoli.   [Uhh, wake me up when it’s over, I think I’ve seen this newsreel before.]

plane there is absolutely NOTHING in that article to contradict what I said originally - - that al Qaeda will never get a second chance to pull off the kind of shit it pulled off so brilliantly on Sept. 11.

You should learn - - the whole country should learn - - how to shrug off alarmist sky-is-falling sensationalist shit from the MSM, of which the piece you quoted is a prime example.  Where are the fucking grown-ups?

[Plane]

9-11 was not a first or  a second attack , it was after many trys one worked.

How can you think that a second chance will not be offered when 9-11 it self was a second chance?

A recent plot was interrupted in which ten or twelve planes would have been destroyed in transit of the Atlantic. This could have claimed on to five thousand victims if it was only the people on the planes whoever they might land on would also count.

I would like to have thought that tighter security and hard police work would halt further activities of the same nature , but I would have liked to think that after the Lockerbie tragedy.

[Plane]

" If the U.S.A. needs to secure the Afghan-Pakistani border to stop sucker-punch plots, there’s no place on the face of the earth it DOESN’T need to secure."

I like the thought.

[Michael Tee]

<<I like the thought [of the U.S.A. securing every spot on the face of the earth, no matter how remote.]>>

Hey, I like the thought of my wife and I spending every February on St. Barts and every July on Nantucket with the grand-kids, but my bank account says I can't do it.

[Plane]

<<I like the thought [of the U.S.A. securing every spot on the face of the earth, no matter how remote.]>>

Hey, I like the thought of my wife and I spending every February on St. Barts and every July on Nantucket with the grand-kids, but my bank account says I can't do it.

Ask the British and the Chineese for a large loan.