It is only possible in America for a Muslim politician to become the Head of State. No Muslim country on Earth will allow a non-Muslim to become the Head of State.

U.S. President Baraq Hussein, Jr. should have rescued himself before making any decision where there is a direct conflict of interest regarding continuing a war or ending it in an Islamic country; because, he came to the White House to end ongoing two wars in two Islamic countries.

Vice President Biden should have given the speech at West Point instead of President Baraq Hussein, Jr., since Vice President Biden is not faithful to Islam.

Lucky break.

I concur. The foundation for jihadist fury would substantially subside since America would have removed the gravamen for their grievances–namely, foreign policy abuses. Jihadist fury against the West will still endure except now the rest of the world would have no sympathy for their plaints and, with America having disengaged from the region, would be far less inclined to grant any legitimacy to them when the jihadists attack America in future.

“TomB, If we had an about-face with our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East and adopted non-interventionism (which I would support), do you think that will be the end of the jihadists? No, we would still have to be on guard….”

“On guard”: Very interesting formulation Pons given that with your background belief you would tend to see our residual situation about as direly as possible, and given that merely having to be “on guard” is one freaking whale of a lot less dire than being “at war,” which of course is the state we are in right now in three separate countries, and threatening in a fourth.

I hasten to say that I also think it’s a very thoughtful, accurate formulation on your part, that I share. But let’s get back to the nub and let me see if I can quantify my point:

If we indeed tried your experiment and “adopted non-interventionism,” and it were indeed true non-interventionism (meaning also a complete cessation of all non-humanitarian support to the regimes in the region including Israel most signally), would you not agree that there is simply no way that this would not reduce the risk of attack upon us by at *least* 75%?

Frankly, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn’t reduce it by at least 90% if not 95% since at that point I don’t think there’d be anything we’d be doing that the jihadists would want us to stop, but maybe that’s just me.

So again, wouldn’t you agree at least with the 75% figure? Picked because it’s my bet that this would probably be in the neighborhood of the consensus of the reduced threat we would face by our professional threat analysts at State, Defense, CIA and etc. (Who could never go along with any much higher figure just out of healthy professional scepticism if not some smart thought to cover their asses just in case.)

Or maybe let’s put it another way: Right now let’s say the state our situation in the Middle East is at DefCon 5: War, right? Unimaginable to me that if we truly pulled out anyone would say that we would quite quickly be at anything greater than DefCon 2. (And, given some time, very possibly at DefCon 1 within a couple of years at most.)

Either way, high end or low end, percentile reduction or DefCon analogy, good enough for me.

Cheers,

TomB, If we had an about-face with our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East and adopted non-interventionism (which I would support), do you think that will be the end of the jihadists? No, we would still have to be on guard since they would still despise and assail America. As Jack Hunter has said, “Liberals who believe Islamic terrorism is mostly due to US occupation of Muslim nations are correct, but foolish to believe there does not exist a religious dimension” (not that I’m implying that you are a liberal) and that, absent American foreign policy, jihadists would have “much less inspiration to commit murder”. They would have much less inspiration, but inspiration nevertheless.

“TomB, what transgressions had America committed against Tripoli … in 1785 …? It is not always about foreign policy.”

No, but it is now.

TomB, what transgressions had America committed against Tripoli (what had Europe done as well?) in 1785 when ambassador Sidi Haji Abdurrahman proclaimed that there was a state of war between the two nations and demanded tribute for pacification? It is not always about foreign policy.

You too avoid defining “victory”. Stockholm on the Euphrates with Zurich at the end of the Khyber? (audience: please stop laughing, you may pass out) Reagan went into both Grenada and Panama, accomplished the very narrow and short mission and exited quickly. Brevity is the soul of whit, but it is also the goal of tactics. When Lebanon turned into a “sit and bleed” situation, he realized that there is no victory against an insane populace and EXITED.

Bush and Obama would do a “surge” in Lebanon after a large loss. They are both fools.

The only dishonor should be in attempting to continue the futile at the expense of American blood.

If Bin Laden isn’t laughing, I would be surprised. We have lost our liberty, or economy, and much blood, and even those who are otherwise wise would have use continue on that path until we are ashes and dust.

Who do we think prevails when the debate is about war instead of war PROFITS?

PROFITS that could be taxed into extinction in less than one generation:

Like chattel slavery between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor.

Since this won’t happen with the current US Congress, FLUSH the DC TOILET in 2010!

And replace every member of congress running for reelection with someone who won’t kill thousands of Muslim (Mexican?) children for campaign contributions

There are myriad ways to guard against the outgrowth of Al Qaeda in the region without continuing this occupation. Nation building is a fatal conceit of empires and the hight of hubris. Protests about humanitarian crises if we leave is a sick joke coming from the enthusiastic endorsers of aggressive hegemony. “We” owe the Afghani people nothing–our Political Class bear the responsibility for their own decisions, not the American people, who have little, if any real say in policy. Nobody asked my permission to spend my taxes in Afghanistan.

I can understand the reluctance to bear the shame of a perceived defeat and the outrage over sacrifices made in vain, but worrying about a propaganda coup of a bunch of ragtag fanatics is only such a concern because the neocons cynically exaggerated the true threat they pose with a lot of propaganda of their own. They built them up into these Uber-Boogeymen; a giant hobgoblin menace akin to the the worst caricatures of our previous mortal enemies, giving credence to their own egotistical, delusional rantings about Caliphates and world domination. When you glorify your enemy to the extent that we have, it becomes difficult to then deal with them realistically, according to the attention they actually deserve.

Also, we have a sad obsession with superficial postures of strength and victory in this country, with patriotism reduced to a pep-rally mentality, while our true strength and influence rots from within. Obama is certainly concerned about domestic politics and how his handling of Af/Pak influences his electoral fortunes. In this way, he’s rationalizing the certainty of more dead soldiers as the price of fulfilling the rest of his domestic agenda. Unfortunately, this evil Machiavellian thinking is rather typical, and it will be darkly humorous to watch as progressives bend over backwards to defend it.

1) The Surge was a ‘success’ only in that it allowed Bush to pass the responsibility for ending the Iraq fiasco onto the next Administration. That’s all it ever was, another delaying tactic, crafted to give the MSM something shiny and exciting to write about while the Maliki Regime completed ethnically-cleansing Baghdad and US funds bought off enough Insurgents to lower the noise level.

2) Obama campaigned and won a landslide election victory while saying openly that he considered Afghanistan a ‘necessary war’ that he planned to fight properly. I might not agree with his policy, but that doesn’t change the fact that he has an electoral mandate to carry it out.

3) Bush’s ‘decisive’ method of decison-making led to one disaster after another for America in Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain’s promise to be just as mindlessly aggressive was a major factor in his crushing defeat last year. Now the Obama Administration has to clean up the mess Bush left behind, and has chosen to put some actual thought into the decisions it makes. This is a – good – thing, regardless of how the anti-intellectual right and its water-carriers in the Media try to spin it into a weakness.