You think America would be forced to take military action against Assad if it's proved that he had Hariri killed?

Why on earth do you think that?

not forced, almost forced, in terms of the Bush doctrine and such.

I mean, what good are "warnings" to Syria if we're simply going to let them continue sponsoring terrorism and assassinating foreign leaders?

At what point does our credibility demand that cruise missiles start raining down on Assad's (and his controllers') villas?

Since when is avenging assassinated leaders of foreign countries part of the Bush doctrine?

If Assad's logistical support of the jihad in Iraq hasn't been enough to warrant retaliation, his bumping off Hariri isn't going to do it either.

Yeah, I really can't see what you're getting at either, Ace. Hariri's been dead and buried for a while now. Even if this were proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt the most we (or anyone else) would do is call for sanctions, condemn strongly, vote for a UN resolution, blah blah blah.

Ace, I'm with the skeptics here. It's always been a common assumption that Assad ordered the hit, and probably with a great deal of classified justification even without direct, public evidence. If this report is true, it's kind of a "duh" surprise, like Kate Moss doing blow off a celery stalk.

And, furthermore, we've had plenty of justification against Assad without having to stick up for a friendly (or newly friendly) nation in the region. After all, plenty of foreign fighters have poured into Iraq across the Syrian border-- if not with direct aid, than at least with the convenient ignorance on the part of the Syrian regime.

Bottom line: we've got a better excuse than this, and have had it for some time.

The best thing to come out of this story, however, would be that everyone would finally be forced to publicly acknowledge that the Boy Assad is, in fact, a bad man, rather than pussyfooting around such an otherwise undiplomatic conclusion.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. O/T, but did you see this? I've got a posting up too. . . what a dick. Honestly, really, what a shameless dick.

Listen, as much as I hate to say it, Syria and Iran have us by the balls right now. Matt Yglesias wrote something about it the other day and his logic is entirely sound. There's not enough public support here at home for doing what needs to be done to clean up the Middle East, so we're simply going to have to grin and bear it when these cocksuckers act out.

The only way I see Assad being ousted is if the attacks from Syria continue and the Iraqi army counterattacks. But I think they're years away from being able to do that.

If true, it will add to the many justifications for removing Assad. His government has assisted the passage of jihadists into Iraq and kept their supply lines open. As long as he is in power, the mass slaughter of Iraqi civilians will continue.

Iraq has its own version of reality TV. They broadcast the confessions of captured jihadists. Some are Syrian officers and advisors. Iraqis know that Syria is waging war against them. As the Iraqi military gets stronger and stronger, this will have consequences.

The War on Terror is not finished. Iraq is not the end. Bush will be in office for three more years. I doubt that Assad will be.

Ditto Allah. The only way we'll take action against Syria is if Iraq quiets down enough-- both in real terms, and in public perception-- or, if Syria increases its support for the Iraqi insurgency to a point that can no longer be ignored.

No good options. I've wondered for a while now whether it would have been better for us to just go in, break the glass, and then leave Iraq to its own devices. We would have gotten shit for the humanitarian disaster that probably would have followed, but the bad guys would have known we meant business, and we'd be in a position to break glass again soon after.

Instead, for good or ill, we're sleeping with the tar baby now.

Shit. War sucks.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

The only way we'll take action against Syria is if Iraq quiets down enough-- both in real terms, and in public perception-- or, if Syria increases its support for the Iraqi insurgency to a point that can no longer be ignored.

You're the expert, Dave, but at this point I don't see us taking action against Syria for anything short of a direct attack on the United States. Can you imagine how the press would deal with it? I bet Frank Rich already has a column on standby comparing Syria to Cambodia.

Even if the bombings in Iraq stopped tomorrow, the past two years have soured Americans on the idea of a grand reformation/reconstruction effort in the region. Which I suppose means that Zarqawi's boys have, in fact, won the war.

I do think it's fascinating, though, to consider how an Iraqi attack on Syria would be received. Iraq would have the moral high ground considering Assad's role in terrorizing them over the past two years. There would also be some potent symbolism in the idea of Iraq liberating another Arab nation from Baathist tyranny. And last but certainly not least, it would scare the shit out of Iran.

How about a joint Iraqi/Lebanese attack? Anyone? Bueller?

Oh, Allah-- I didn't specify how unlikely I think either of those cases are. I think they're both very unlikely anytime soon, thus an attack on Syria isn't going to happen anytime soon, if at all.

However, I do believe that the Bush Administration, for good reasons and bad, really doesn't care about mercurial public opinion. The problem is, if the occupation continues, it doesn't just sour the public, it sours the military-- who wants to put a military force into Syria and keep it there, after our experience in Iraq? I doubt you'd find much enthusiasm on the E-Ring for that (the *real* E-Ring, not Dennis Hopper's E-Ring ;-).

Personally, I'd love it if we could get the *French* more involved. Yes, the Frogs. Why? Because they like wet work, and they consider Lebanon and Syria their private little area.

Wouldn't mind the DGSE doing our dirty job for us. 'Bout time they helped out.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

"War sucks"

This isn't war, Dave; this is peace. War doesn't suck. Peace sucks. In fact, as PJ O'Rourke correctly notes, Peace Kills.

O/T Drudge, on his radio show, just played a clip of Anderson Cooper lapsing into an extended "Beat Poet" riff.
e.g:

"Big Easy...
water rises
Black Helicoptors
flutter
in
the sky.."

Except worse. Was this on air? Can anyone, anyone give me a link to this somewhere on the web? Beggin here. Absolute gold.

Megan, I understand and appreciate that analysis, I know where it comes from, but trust me, it's war. It's out there everyday.

It's just not war to everyone-- not to our enemies, or to our "friends."

And that's a bloody travesty.

The question is not how the US will respond, but how this will play in Middle East politics. With Assad personally under fire from the 'Arab Street' (haven't heard that one in awhile), he's likely to get a little more cooperative with Iraq.

"it's war. It's out there everyday"

It's really not. In war, you don't consider the enemy's feelings or their religious sensitivities or any of the shit we regularly act all concerned about. You don't try to f'n minimize enemy casualties, for crying out loud. You try to maximize them.

We're not doing any of this. Not one actor in the Iraqi theater is acting like this is a war - not our friends, not our enemies, and certainly not us.

This is peace. And peace, as usual, is getting Americans killed.

I apologize, Megan. You're right, it's not war. Sorry for arguing with you.

I'll be sure to tell my co-workers that tomorrow. Remind them not to bother shipping out this month, there's no war to go fight. It's peace, really!

:-)

In war, you don't consider the enemy's feelings or their religious sensitivities or any of the shit we regularly act all concerned about. You don't try to f'n minimize enemy casualties, for crying out loud.

But those are the rules of engagement now. Complaining about them is like complaining during WWI about the enemy using mustard gas. Ain't nothing gonna change so you might as well get used to it and plan your strategy accordingly.

Breaking News: Ladies and gentlemen, TimesSelect is now in effect. Herbert and Krugman are behind the wall.

Where can a man go now for rabid anti-Bush agitprop?

Oh, right. Everywhere.

"I'll be sure to tell my co-workers that tomorrow"

No need to get all holier-than-thou with me, Dave. Up until a short while ago they were my co-workers too.

You know exactly what I'm saying. A real war would result in far fewer American casualties. This is not war. Too many Americans are dying for it to be war.

"But those are the rules of engagement now"

For us. It's a double standard, Allah, and I'm getting mighty sick of it. Unfortunately, it'll probably take another 9/11, maybe two, before the American public as a whole gets sick of it as well. For some bizarre reason we still don't feel threatened, and so we're restraining our military unfairly and making them bear the burden of our overwrought, twisted, and pernicious foibles, foibles that we like to tout as some kind of fucking conscience.

There's nothing good or moral about any limited engagement. The sooner we wake up and start treating our enemies as our enemies, the better.

Breaking News: Ladies and gentlemen, TimesSelect is now in effect. Herbert and Krugman are behind the wall.

Where they belong.

I predict very few people will pay for the enlightened views of Herbert and Krugman.

Megan, I'm just teasing you, hence the :-).

We're all friends here, we're all on the same side.

I'm just emphasizing for anyone reading this that, while the larger strategic direction is shit right now (just read any Victor Davis Hanson column and start crying), the people in the trenches, the guys and gals I see every day-- they damn well treat this as a war.

But, like you, I just wish the rest of America's leadership did so as well. But it's probably too late for all that now.

"just read any Victor Davis Hanson column"

A good point... they pretty much ALL read exactly the same.

Sorry if I'm being snippy, Dave; I've been sober for a few too many days. I'll go ahead and remedy that.

In war, you don't consider the enemy's feelings or their religious sensitivities...

That's the schizophrenia caused by the left holding our warfighters to the accountability standards of police. They tell us that we're losing, but they seem to simultaneously believe that we should be able to conduct military operations more humanely than the LAPD.

Exactly Geoff, which is why I don't agree with Allah when he says that we should just get used to it. I'm sorry, but we already have declared and serious enemies; one day again soon, we'll have declared and serious enemies with repeated and reliable attack capability as well. At that point this kind of double standard crap will become utterly unsustainable, rather than just cowardly, costly, and foolish.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to train myself to commit suicide.

Exactly Geoff, which is why I don't agree with Allah when he says that we should just get used to it.

Get used to it. Nothing short of a WMD attack is going to take the gloves off our military, and I doubt even that will do it. And let's be fair: there are strategic advantages to being circumspect about civilian casualties. As dicey as things are right now in Iraq, they'd be much worse if we went around indiscriminately bombing mosques.

Honestly, these "we need to get tough" arguments are like saying, "we need George Patton right now." Patton's dead. He ain't coming back. Let's accept it and move on.

Won't.

...there are strategic advantages to being circumspect about civilian casualties.

The strategic advantages are largely undermined when the left accuses of atrocities anyway.

As far as 'get tough' arguments, I'd just like a little more latitude in interrogations, and a lot more understanding of the exigencies of war. As in the case of Lt Pantano, for instance.

Tangentially related to the topic at hand: this essay by Lawrence Kaplan. I normally don't link stuff from TNR (unless it's by Marty Peretz), but this is an exception. Highly recommended.

The strategic advantages are largely undermined when the left accuses of atrocities anyway.

Are they? The WoT is a war of hearts and minds more than anything else, and I think we've done reasonably well on that front in Iraq. Start gunning down civilians and blowing up mosques and that'll change in a hurry.

Put yourself in an Iraqi's shoes. On the one hand, Zarqawi's trying to kill him. On the other hand, if we put your plan into action, America's trying to kill him too. In a situation like that, why not join up with Zarqawi? It cuts his number of enemies in half.

The plot thickens.

Geoff noted: "The strategic advantages are largely undermined when the left accuses of atrocities anyway."

Yes, and in any case, no one was talking about civilian casualties in the first place, Allah. Where did I say "We need to kill more women and children?" We get criticized for killing enemy fighters. In what universe does that make sense? There are NO "strategic advantages" to not killing people trying to kill you. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Your mom. What utter nonsense.

This is us fighting with one hand tied behind our back wearing our Queensberry-approved gloves while our opponents blast away with an AK-47. You might think that's just fine, and well if that's what it takes to stop the leftists and the Eurogoons whining we might as well do it, but I disagree. Violently. Sooner or later we'll get hit by another bullet and one day it won't be a flesh wound.

We do need Patton. And Sherman. And Jackson. And Lee. The fact that they're all dead makes our need not one whit less real - just more desperate.

my advice to you, is to start drinking heavily

"The WoT is a war of hearts and minds more than anything else"

And that, right there, is where Allah lost me forever, folks.

Oderint dum metuant. They can keep their filthy hearts and their backward minds.

"start drinking heavily"

"Start?"

We get criticized for killing enemy fighters.

We do?? I gotta tell ya, I keep up with this stuff pretty conscientiously and rarely do I hear arguments coming from the left complaining that we've killed too many terrorists. Granted, you'll hear Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan bloviate about the "minutemen" occasionally, but let's be fair: even among our deranged friends across the aisle, that's not a popular position. It's Chomsky territory, and as bad as the Democrats have become, most of them aren't Chomskyites. Yet.

We just launched a major operation in Tal Afar. Killed upwards of 200 jihadis, from what I understand. Have you seen/heard anyone complaining about that? Show me the links if you have; I'd be most interested to see them.

If you're not talking about killing civilians, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you saying that when we faced off with Al-Sadr around the Najaf shrine last year, we should have just carpet-bombed the shrine?

I agree that we need to be circumspect in creating civilian casualties, I'm just saying that if we're vilified anyway (by those in our own country), we've lost all the benefits at the risk of imperiling our soldiers.

I'd also like a little more understanding from those on the left regarding the terrorists placing civilians at risk. The left has never acknowledged that the terrorists' strategy is inherently killing civilians, and that the mistakes of our military should be interpreted with that understanding.

Finally, put yourself in a Syrian's shoes, with the American press repeating claims that we killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians, that the Abu Ghraib abuses are endemic to the military, and that our intentions are entirely mercenary. I think it's a wonder that more don't slip across the border to join Zarqawi.

"The WoT is a war of hearts and minds more than anything else"

And that, right there, is where Allah lost me forever, folks.

Please. Don't be such a drama queen. Of course it's a war of hearts and minds. Do you think we're going to take on a billion Muslims in a fight to the death? Do you think we should? Anyone else here agree?

We've got two ideologies competing in Iraq. The goal is to get the Iraqis, and then the rest of the region, on board with ours. Simple as that.

Allah:

"Killed upwards of 200 jihadis, from what I understand. Have you seen/heard anyone complaining about that?"

The point you're missing there is that in order to complain about it they'd have to acknowledge that it happened. Have you seen/heard anyone on the left doing that?

Nah, didn't think so. That'd cut into the "miserable failure," "Iraq in chaos," "ratings slipping" memes.

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq one of the principal arguments being marshalled against it by our lefty friends was that it'd result in the deaths of too many Iraqi soldiers. Well, fuck me, because I thought that was the goddamn point!

As it turned out, of course, I was wrong. And didn't that work out jes' splendid.

It'd be useless to provide you with links because I'm sure you've seen everything I have; more, probably, since I don't read many blogs other than Ace and Powerline. But I'm sure you're familiar with Moussaoui, Padilla, and of course Walker Lindh. Even imprisoning those bastards or putting them on trial is fraught with untold difficulties. Human rights, human rights, human rights is all we ever hear. Abu Ghraib? Camp Delta? Hiring Blackwater? No no no, can't have that. Can't have any of that. But the Marine who shot a terrorist playing possum? Court-martial!

Give me a break, Allah. You do know what I'm talking about - it's f'n everywhere.

"Are you saying that when we faced off with Al-Sadr around the Najaf shrine last year, we should have just carpet-bombed the shrine?"

Only if I could have passed on the FF personally. Man, would that have been satisfying.

"Do you think we're going to take on a billion Muslims in a fight to the death? Do you think we should?"

Well, it wouldn't be a fair fight, but if that's the one they want to pick I have no objections.

Oh, and stuff your "drama queen" shit in your shoe...

Have you seen/heard anyone on the left doing that? Nah, didn't think so. That'd cut into the "miserable failure," "Iraq in chaos," "ratings slipping" memes.

Part of the reason they say it's a "miserable failure" is because they think we haven't killed enough enemy fighters. For someone on the right who agrees, see here.

I'm sure you're familiar with Moussaoui, Padilla, and of course Walker Lindh. Even imprisoning those bastards or putting them on trial is fraught with untold difficulties. Human rights, human rights, human rights is all we ever hear.

Yeah, and I agree with you about that. But once again, let's be fair: killing an enemy fighter on the battlefield -- i.e., in self-defense -- and killing a prisoner are two very different things. I've heard a lot of screeching from the left about the latter, but not so much about the former. If you're saying that we shouldn't bother taking prisoners at all and should just off these guys on the spot, I'm down with that. But let's acknowledge at least that that's not how we've traditionally done business, even when dealing with enemies as degenerate as the ones we have now. For Christ's sake, we gave Hermann Goering a trial.

"Are you saying that when we faced off with Al-Sadr around the Najaf shrine last year, we should have just carpet-bombed the shrine?"

Only if I could have passed on the FF personally. Man, would that have been satisfying.

Fine. Ace's readers can decide for themselves which approach they think is wiser.

Off-topic but not really: Here's something fun from the archives. Ah, memories....

Allah:

"Part of the reason they say it's a "miserable failure" is because they think we haven't killed enough enemy fighters."

Uh, no. The left says Iraq is a failure because there are enemy fighters there in the first place. Is all the shit about "10,000 bin Ladens" somehow slipping your memory?

The issue of killing them, for the left, never comes up.

"...let's acknowledge at least that that's not how we've traditionally done business, even when dealing with enemies as degenerate as the ones we have now. For Christ's sake, we gave Hermann Goering a trial."

If we brushed under the carpet all the German spies we summarily executed before then, I suppose you might have a point. As it is, you really don't.

PS.

"Off-topic but not really: Here's something fun from the archives. Ah, memories...."

If only. My "exit strategy" would take a roughly east by nor'nor'east route. Hey, whatcha complaining about? We left Iraq! :)

Things really get a whole lot simpler once you accept the fact that liberals and Moslems can never be satisfied.

Uh, Patton's not dead. Oh, sorry - wrong Patton. But he's forced to agree with Allah anyway.

As some wit, somewhere said sometime recently on a peripherally related topic(either here or at Garfield Ridge, perhaps?), we'll do what we always do - appease and be nice until most of the folks clustered around the center of the polity here get tired of it.

And if that line gets crossed, poop-flinging monkeys will have nothing on the US Military.

even when dealing with enemies as degenerate as the ones we have now

Allah - do you agree with the very last spoken line in the documentary Control Center?

Goddamnit, I went over to Fox News half a minute ago and they were JUST leaving Megyn Kendall and switching to... Geraldo.

Fucking hell. That's like getting punched in the mouth and then being asked to gargle with vinegar.

The left says Iraq is a failure because there are enemy fighters there in the first place. Is all the shit about "10,000 bin Ladens" somehow slipping your memory?

This argument started with you saying that "we get criticized for killing enemy fighters." I'm saying to you, who among the mainstream left is criticizing us for doing that? The point about 10,000 Bin Ladens is meant to show that what we're doing in Iraq is counterproductive, i.e., not only are we not killing many jihadis, we're creating more of them than there were before. In other words: enemy fighters BAD. Lack of enemy fighters GOOD.

Look, I realize that there are plenty of people on the left who want us to fail in Iraq. I hope they all get cancer. But wanting us to lose is not quite the same thing as wanting to see the jihadis flourish and proliferate. I suspect that deep in the recesses of his tiny brain, even Kos understands that the ascendance of Islamic fundamentalism is not entirely in his best interest. As such, the fewer mujahedeen, the better.

If we brushed under the carpet all the German spies we summarily executed before then, I suppose you might have a point. As it is, you really don't.

Don't I? Know how many German POWs were held here in the US during WWII? Almost 400,000. Here's a short description of how they were treated at the "prison" in Fort Bliss:

When the first enemy prisoners started arriving in the States, they did not know what to expect. What they found amazed them: clean barracks, good health care, canteens full of consumer goods not seen in Europe in years and food so plentiful that they wrote their families to stop sending gift parcels. Such treatment soon stirred the American press and Congress to criticize the War Department for pampering the enemy, but the War Department defended its policy by pointing out the strategic reward of treating prisoners well: enemy troops were surrendering....

Even though the prisoners worked hard, they had a great deal of free time. Generally they had many activities to occupy that spare time. Sports, painting and gardening were some of the more popular activities. Some of the prisoners showed more of an interest in academics, and they attended classes in the barracks and recreation rooms of the camps. Prisoners took classes in everything from chemistry and physics to American government, English language and journalism. These classes were taught by German prisoners who had been school teachers and professors before the war.

The History Channel ran a program about the camps in the U.S. not long ago that confirms this kind of treatment wasn't limited to Fort Bliss. In fact, the one image I remember from the show is a group photo of an orchestra comprised of German POWs. We gave them fucking musical instruments. And they put on little shows and shit.

Not exactly Auschwitz, was it? But as the article says, it did encourage them to surrender. Which is the point I've been making all along: treat the enemy better they deserve -- in this case by, say, not carpet-bombing their mosques -- and it makes your own life easier.

Tony -- I think you mean "Control Room." I haven't seen it. What's the last line?

"Know how many German POWs were held here in the US during WWII? Almost 400,000."

Heartwarming. Again, genuine prisoners of war are a FAR CRY from Islamofascist terrorists and Nazi spies. I wouldn't have minded putting up one or two Luftwaffe colonels my grandfather knew in the spare bedroom, but that hardly applies to our present foes and it NEVER applied to their equivalents in the past. Your analogy is rotten, as is your straw man re: Auschwitz. Find me the line in which I've advocated genocide and/or death camps. If you can't (and "If that's the fight they want to pick" doesn't count, since it was referencing YOUR hypothetical) then kindly lay off that particular brand of crap, would you please?

"The point about 10,000 Bin Ladens is meant to show that what we're doing in Iraq is counterproductive, i.e., not only are we not killing many jihadis, we're creating more of them than there were before. In other words: enemy fighters BAD. Lack of enemy fighters GOOD."

No, that putative "point" explicitly claims that killing jihadis results in more jihadis, and that either you can't get ahead of the curve no matter how many jihadis you kill or that killing enough jihadis to get ahead of the curve is somehow immoral, both of which are self-evidently ludicrous propositions.

"This argument started with you saying that "we get criticized for killing enemy fighters." I'm saying to you, who among the mainstream left is criticizing us for doing that?"

Again: the Marine who was filmed shooting the terrorist playing possum had innumerable assorted leftists calling for his head within less than a day. I don't know what constitutes "the mainstream left" anymore; you can pick apart the differences if you wish, but for my money that's about as easy a task as picking boll weevils out of wet cotton, and about as pleasant. They're all whackjobs as far as I'm concerned.

Next.

As some wit, somewhere said sometime recently on a peripherally related topic(either here or at Garfield Ridge, perhaps?), we'll do what we always do - appease and be nice until most of the folks clustered around the center of the polity here get tired of it.

And if that line gets crossed, poop-flinging monkeys will have nothing on the US Military.

Only one minor problem with this - I and about 2 million other Manhattanites will probably be dead. and that would suck - but not in a 72 virgins felatio kind of way.

Damn.

"Only one minor problem with this - I and about 2 million other Manhattanites will probably be dead."

Precisely so - and given that Allah himself has made this observation in the past I'm more than a little surprised by his line of reasoning tonight.

That's one possible outcome, and not the outcome any rational person could want. My definition of "appeasement" stops WELL short of clear acts of war, but still includes a lot of actions (like, for instance, anything Mookie al Sadr does) that would piss off that same rational person.

The simplest way to ensure that more evil isn't foisted off on us by the Islamic fundamentalist trash that comprises our main enemy right now is to obliterate most everything outside our borders. A more measured approach would be to melt the Middle East, followed by large chunks of Africa and Southeast Asia, followed by what is now a decent portion of Eurabia and Central Asia.

But, damn, think of the unintended consequences.

As I had occasion to mourn in a conversation the other day, it blows to be fighting a war in which our enemies, the world over, use our own kindness, open-mindedness, freedoms, and physical tools to our detriment.

But killing them all, without regard to the consequences, wouldn't solve the problem even if we were capable of doing it. Therefore, we've got to remain as close as we can to what we are, and be extraordinarily vigilant. Sadly, that includes waiting for the majority in the US, if not the rest of the world, to have had it up to HERE with the crap-burgers we're fed by Islam and its apologists.

"killing them all, without regard to the consequences, wouldn't solve the problem even if we were capable of doing it"

I confess I've never understood this line of argument. Seems like it'd solve the problem quite effectively.

And, for the record, I estimate that 8 B-2 Spirits with 2 officers and 50 ground staff apiece are more than capable of doing it on their own. And we have more than that.

Tony -- I think you mean "Control Room." I haven't seen it. What's the last line?

Yea, Control Room.

The last line, spoken by an Al Jazerra staffer, when asked if Muslims and Iraqi's would accept what was going on was something along the lines of:

"we (arabs) respect winners"

It was the most important line in the whole movie and they saved it for last.

I walked away with the impression that we could make a lot of mistakes along the way, and they will be tolerated, as long as the end result is that we win.

"I walked away with the impression that we could make a lot of mistakes along the way, and they will be tolerated, as long as the end result is that we win."

Quite so Tony. UBL's "strong horse" line speaks to the same mentality. Hardly admirable, but one we'd be fools not to use to our advantage.

We've got to undo 8 years of Clintonian waffling first.

The USA lost a lot of street cred among the splodydope scumbag set during those 8 years.

Indeed.

"Even if the bombings in Iraq stopped tomorrow, the past two years have soured Americans on the idea of a grand reformation/reconstruction effort in the region. Which I suppose means that Zarqawi's boys have, in fact, won the war."

Looks like the lefty disinformation campaign is wearing somebody down. I've seen polls showing support slipping for how the Iraq war is being handled but I haven't seen any polls showing support for the 'Democratize the Middle East' stategy is slipping. Do you have a link Allah?

In three years we've had a remarkable level of success in the WoT. We're not done by any stretch of the imagination, but we're moving forward. I am very optimistic and believe there's a lot of this war being fought beyond the public's view. Appeasement, in any form, is a huge mistake right now.

Tell a lie often enough...

the 9:31 AM was me. Loose doody.

The US population would continue to support aggressive military action, giving Syria the Serbia treatment for example, as long as they could go about their business confident that the administration was competently taking care of it's business.

Social democrat media, academia, and politicians provide a continuous negative rant on the administration's competence, policies and goals. If they know the terrorists are counting on them to win, they don't care.

Long term they probably would unless there is a way to counter the effect.

A proactive administration approach would be to select military actions against Syria which could be agressively defended by those willing to take on the social democrats in public.

The egg for that chicken needs to be apparent however, and that is something I would like to see take form.

I think Allah's right here. It's a uniquely American trait to look at a bunch of rag-headed, AK-toting Islamic fundamentalist hoohahs and say, "There but for a green card and a 7-11 goes an American entrepreneur."

To the Europhile, a Jew will always be a dirty Jew. To the Russians, if you can't trace your lineage back to Ivan IV, you're just a smerd. In America, the question is only "Do you have an SUV? Do you want one?"

I think our way is better.

If you're at all Christian, then the Allah Doctrine™ only makes sense. Nuking everything east of the Mediteranean and finishing up with a bit of Windex plays well to the cheap seats, but it's awfully demogogic. We treat people well because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it's popular, convenient, or looks good on TV.

"Nuking everything east of the Mediteranean"

What, only? Stop cramping our style, commie.