Link

The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.” - Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, 11/07/2006

The Democrats, trust in them, and you shall find the daggers sticking in your back.

Hillary Clinton may have a perfect opportunity now to use Pelosi as a contrasting foil, Pelosi the determined defeatist - as opposed to Sen. Clinton the centrist with a less hasty Iraq agenda. Remember that H. Clinton has not recanted her earlier pro-war stand as have other leading Democrats. Speaking as one who is liberal on most domestic issues, who has been reluctantly voting Republican since 9/11, it would gladden my days if someone would lead the Democratic Party back to its soul.
 

Nancy ain’t The Hammer, thank God. Maybe now we can have some discipline over solutions rather than ideology.

A Poster Child for our Resident Trolls!

ARCTICLE HERE

Always stick with your source material.

Emanuel and Schumer’s candidates peformed poorly and Hoyer represents everything the netroots don’t want. i.e. another Israeli mouthpiece.

The people want republican blood on the floor and they want impeachment and (more than anything) they want the troops home.

Spin it all you want, but the numbers don’t lie. Antiwar candidates won biggest.

So’s Pelosi. How is she going to finesse this one?

The Murtha controversey is not news apparently - and more than a little ambigous anyway.

So now Democratic voters can see clearly that the Dem’s have stabbed them in the back by appointing a pro war representative - which was always on the cards and pathetic.

So at least neoconservatives can be pleased that the occupation of the Iraq can continue.

What they don’t realize is that it is only prolonging the brutality and weakening U.S credibility in the world even further.

There will be cutting and running. It can be done now or later.

And later it will be much, much worse than it is now - mark my words..

Now.

So perhaps Neo, you’d do well to consider the will of the Iraqi nation along with your concern for saving American ‘face’….

Thank you Gods of ancient age — may the job be done by right after all!

And maybe, just maybe, the Dems will get smart and get a new Speaker.

Oh, jeez, and the delusional comment about the netroots making this victory possible-ask Sen. Lamont about that. Oh, sorry, wrong reality. Um, and if Netroots-endosed candidates had run in MT and VA, Conrad Burns and Felix Macacawicz would still have their seats, AND their majority.

Like it not, as long as we need somebody else’s oil and gas, the troops won’t be home for long. And please don’t jump on me for being one of the No Blood for Oil! idiots. I wish lions didn’t have to eat, mosquitos drink, and Americans hog, but that’s the way it is.

The republicans were too holy to speak of these uncouth matters. I doubt Nancy & co will either.

Armchair must be one of that rare species, the Blood for Oil! idiots. At least he’s not worried about couth.

I don’t believe the majority of Iraqis “want the U.S to leave” just yet. Certainly the Iraqi government, democratically elected by the Iraqis, wants the US to stay for now.

But the above statement also contains the unstated assumption that the US should base foreign policy on what the “majority of Iraqis” want the US to do. It’s this concern that folks ‘like’ the US, that the US must NEVER do anything that someone, somewhere wouldn’t approve of, that troubles me. It’s a recurring assumption in much anti-war rhetoric and as foreign policy doctrine during the Carter and Clinton years it led directly to 9/11.

It’s when the enemy is unhappy about the US that we know the US is on the right track. They are only happy when the US has suffered a setback and always glum when the US shows some backbone. They believe the Democrat victory means the US will cut and run. I hope for all our sakes they are mistaken.
 

Yup. It’s only the exact exchange rate that must be worked out.

…We either declare defeat and withdraw completely tout de suite, or we surge troops into Baghdad and fight. The ISG will surely try to find some middle ground between these positions, which, of course, doesn’t exist.”

That question forces us to devise a strategy to deal with multiple enemies instead of limiting our strategic thinking to the Iraqi insurgency alone. It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends. But if we ask how to win the war, we can see that we have many good cards to play, and many real allies, from the Iranian and Syrian people to the millions of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria, to several other oppressed groups throughout the region, and even to leaders who today denounce us.

http://tinyurl.com/y64o9s

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20765432-601,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/yjvcjm

http://www.forbes.com/home_asia/feeds/afx/2006/11/17/afx3185079.html

That’s so true as to border on profound.

Democrats (or lefties, whatever) are humble enough not to care if we seem to be abandoning Iraqi allies and admitting defeat… but help out when the Republicans might get the credit? Are you out of your mind? The “loyal” opposition stayed focused on the *real* issue for six years… opposing Bush.

I hope that Republicans are not so petty and work for a stable democracy in Iraq for the next two years even if Democrats will take credit for a “new direction.”

No joy for you there. I suspect you know that though. You lot are nothing if not contrarian.

First off - poll after poll indicate Iraqis do not want U.S troops in their country - hardly a point of controversey - but if you believe otherwise, I’d love to hear why.

I’ll only say, grackle, that your forgeting the invasion was a humanitarian venture - a liberation from Saddam Hussein - to allow freedom and democracy in Iraq to flourish. If that’s what you believe than you will care if Iraqi’s want you out of there country -like you did on purple-finger day. “Someone, somewhere”??? LOL.

Clinton? Sure - why not. But please try to remember, grackle, that the Monroe doctrine wasn’t created by Clinton - or that 9/11 didn’t happen during Clinton’s term. Do you not read the news?

“It’s when the enemy is unhappy about the US that we know the US is on the right track. They are only happy when the US has suffered a setback and always glum when the US shows some backbone. They believe the Democrat victory means the US will cut and run. I hope for all our sakes they are mistaken.”

So now the Iraqi civilian population is the enemy. Frankly I knew they always were - but I’m quite you weren’t saying that when the U.S dropped bombs on Bagdahd or when U.S soldiers were raping and killing teenage Iraqi girls, or indiscriminately destroying villages and towns, and torturing them with impunity. It’d be interesting to check your post during the Israeli assault on the civilian population of Lebanon - were you not one of the one’s lamenting the tragic destruction of life and infrastructure, reasuring the Lebanese population that it’s not them only Hezbollah that were being targeted.

Do you really believe, my dear friend, that having a foreign policy that creates more enemies is doing the right thing?

I hope for your sake grackle you suffer from some time of mental disability, because truly there can be no other explanation for that post..

Hoo-ah. Turns out a majority of the Republican vote plus a split of the Democratic vote — i.e., those with remnants of both a brain and a backbone — trounces the Chosen One of the cut-and-runners, and guy says there’s no joy!! Oh, there is joy, guy, just not for you.

Do you sense a little frustration, even bitterness — even desperation — already beginning to creep in to the nutroots, as they pause for breath between ululations? What if — gasp — even their last hope, the Democrats, turn out not to be quite so ready to flee as they’d been given to hope? Oh, what will the world think of us, they moan. Oh, what if all those moderate, peace-loving muslims decide to turn into jihadis? Can’t you just see the nutroots gnashing their teeth in fear and rage?

I don’t trust polls of Iraqis – too many things that are simply impossible to check for veracity could be in play and the temptation to fudge too great – but leave the issue of trust of the pollsters aside – the idea that an opinion poll from data gathered in a war zone is meaningful is in itself kind of dumb. My opinion is that the Iraqis want us to stay, not forever but until the government is stable, and that opinion is guided by the best poll of all – democratic elections. What’s really not a point of controversy is that the elected leaders of an ally want the US to stay.

I’ll only say, grackle, that your forgetting the invasion was a humanitarian venture - a liberation from Saddam Hussein - to allow freedom and democracy in Iraq to flourish. If that’s what you believe than you will care if Iraqi’s want you out of there country -like you did on purple-finger day. “Someone, somewhere”??? LOL.

That’s one of Bush’s biggest mistakes, listing liberation as ONE of the reasons for downing Saddam. There were other reasons of course, the main reason being to rid the area of a murderous bastard that also happened to be a danger to the US. Two birds with one toppling. We now know al Qaeda/Iraqi relations were cozy, that Iraqi relations with terrorists in general were warm and friendly and that Saddam fully intended to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as he could – that was revealed by of all sources, the NYT fer gosh sakes, just before the recent elections in a backfired attempt to hurt Bush.

Clinton? Sure - why not. But please try to remember, grackle, that the Monroe doctrine wasn’t created by Clinton - or that 9/11 didn’t happen during Clinton’s term. Do you not read the news?

Clinton didn’t kill OBL when he had the chance because he was afraid of world opinion about the collateral casualties such a strike would entail. No OBL – no 9/11. There always seems to be an overweening desire to not ruffle the feathers of some nasty birds who will NEVER be pleased unless the US is hurt or destroyed, who will ALWAYS be angry if the US pursues a proactive foreign policy instead of the terrorist-approved Clinton/Carter timidly reactive doctrine.

So now the Iraqi civilian population is the enemy. Frankly I knew they always were …

Wow. Talk about leaps of logic. I say the US shouldn’t base foreign policy decisions on Iraqi public opinion, a perfectly reasonable stance, and question the wisdom of poll-taking in war zones and THAT gets translated into the Iraqi people are the “enemy?”

… but I’m quite you weren’t saying that when the U.S dropped bombs on Baghdad or when U.S soldiers were raping and killing teenage Iraqi girls, or indiscriminately destroying villages and towns, and torturing them with impunity.

All

It’d be interesting to check your post during the Israeli assault on the civilian population of Lebanon - were you not one of the one’s lamenting the tragic destruction of life and infrastructure, reassuring the Lebanese population that it’s not them only Hezbollah that were being targeted.

Israel’s big mistake was to try to wage limited war against Hezbollah. But it’s coming – it’s not going to be pretty and it’s going to be very, very tragic but it gets a little closer every day.

Do you really believe, my dear friend, that having a foreign policy that creates more enemies is doing the right thing?

One wonders if the commentor believes that having a foreign policy that is pleasing to our enemies is really the way to go.

I hope for your sake grackle you suffer from some time of mental disability, because truly there can be no other explanation for that post..

Ah, the ad hominem attack. Are any of us surprised?

&nbsp

We are going to kill ALL of your friends in the Palestinian territories and the Arab/Persian world. THe only question is when.

Very true, the US DOES need oil. But it needs to be explained that all the US has ever wanted is to BUY oil, just as every other industrialized nation on earth wants to do. The implication of the It’s About The Oil chant is that the US is somehow stealing or wanting to acquire oil by theft. They can’t just come out and make an explicit claim of theft because THAT direct sentiment would be easily disproved. Thus the meaningless, implication-fraught chant, It’s About The Oil.

I wish lions didn’t have to eat, mosquitoes drink, and Americans hog, but that’s the way it is.

The US seeks to buy a product on an open market, as does every industrialized nation on earth but that perfectly normal and mundane situation is somehow morphed into the sentiment that the US is a “hog.” It’s part of the America Is Bad Template by the Left. Assigning nefarious motives to common, innocent transactions is a favorite tactic of the anti-America crowd.
 

Spoken like a true Bush hater, especially the part about “the people” wanting impeachment. Bush haters always seem to think “the people” want what they want, yet Bush was elected for the US Presidency twice by “the people.”
Impeachment will be on the agenda for the real Bush haters like Pelosi but wiser heads in the Dems may think twice before subjecting the public to impeachment proceedings.

I can even understand the Dems wanting to pay the Repubs back for the trouble the Repubs caused Clinton; I voted for Clinton(and Gore BTW) and the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were a source of extreme consternation for me. That was all before 9/11 and the subsequent Dem softness on the WOT.

However, the Repubs MAY get lucky and the Dem hotheads MAY be allowed by the Dem leaders to try and impeach Bush. My guess is that such a move would help assure Republican victories in ’08.

The ONLY way the Dems can get back into the good graces of folks like me is for them to start sincerely joining in on the WOT instead of whining from the sidelines while they indulge in their favorite Bush-hatred fantasy.

No, grackle. The U.S wants to control Oil. The chant - however simplistic it is - is actually very appropriate. And in a sense it is actually stealing it because the very real policy is to prevent Iraqis controlling it’s production, distribution and it’s revenue. If I were to take your car use it as I desired - but offered to give you the odd lift - hopefully you’ll get the idea.

And it’s not disputable that U.S policy in the middle east has been centred around oil - and it’s quite explicit in NSC documents and various leaders explict statements and of course, actions. The Monroe doctrine clearly outlined a foreign policy that recognized the power equation of oil and OFFICIAL U.S policy is to control it at any cost.

I’ll refrain from the ad hominum attacks, grackle - but please, your arguing something out of your own personal beef with the anti-war movement - not facts.

Your other reply - I respect your opinion - or rather your right to have one - but really what you are arguing is the legitmacy of U.S fascism.

When you argue the U.S has a natural right to invade and control all aspects of a sovereign nation under no threat(or very little) you are accomdating an ideology of fascism.

I’ll refrain from calling you a fascist - mainly because I don’t think you accept that you are and because you have clearly take as fact some Bush admin propganda - Iraq/Al-queda connection - Iraq’s ‘election’ giving legitimacy to the occupation, or as a sign of the will of the Iraqi people, etc etc.

It’s a shame you don’t think more for yourself grackle - but I can understand why…

If by “control” the commentor means buying oil that is necessary for ANY industrialized country then I would agree. But of course that’s the policy of ALL the industrialized nations, to try and insure a supply of a product that is the absolute life blood of ANY industrialized nation – and part of ALL their foreign policies.

And it’s not disputable that U.S policy in the middle east has been centred around oil … it’s quite explicit in NSC documents and various leaders explicit statements and of course, actions.

Wouldn’t any US President be bereft of their duty if they DID NOT gear at least part of their foreign policy toward trying to insure the US is able to purchase oil on the open market? Given that this commodity is necessary to the US economic health, as the commentor seems ready to admit, isn’t it really the DUTY of any President to look after the US economy?

Furthermore, I’m wondering how the commentor reconciles his beliefs with the reality of the disrupted flow from Iraq since the war. If the US motive was to “control” oil “at any cost” then toppling Saddam would be something NOT to be desired – because of the disruption of oil production the Iraq war necessarily produced. I guess it’s all in how you perceive events and the amount of hatred for America you hold in your heart.

America wanting to buy oil is significant of nothing more than an understandable and laudable desire to tend to the US economy by purchasing a commodity on the open market that is necessary to the health of the economy - but to the commentor this is somehow evidence of America’s badness. Strange indeed is the tortured logic of hatred.

… what you are arguing is the legitimacy of U.S fascism.

The fascists are Islamic, not American – but the Left seems to get confused about this all the time.

When you argue the U.S has a natural right to invade and control all aspects of a sovereign nation under no threat(or very little) you are accommodating an ideology of fascism.

That Saddam was a threat is no longer a real subject of debate – even the NYT admitted it just before the elections in a ridiculous attempt to discredit Bush. We all know now that Saddam was VERY friendly with terrorists of all stripes, especially al Qaeda and was intending to resume the manufacture of WMD as soon as the heat was off.

It’s a shame you don’t think more for yourself grackle - but I can understand why…

I’m sure that I think less of myself than the commentor thinks of himself – and that’s a GOOD thing – as Martha would say.
 

“I’d have to add that this nonsense about ‘jihadis’ being ‘jubilant’ ignores completely the fact that the majority of Iraqis want the U.S to leave.”

The above statement also contains the unstated assumption that the US should base foreign policy on what the “majority of Iraqis” want the US to do. It’s this concern that folks ‘like’ the US, that the US must NEVER do anything that someone, somewhere wouldn’t approve of, that troubles me.

Uh, oh… Iraq is the Iraqi’s country, Grackle. Surely they have a right to express their opinion on what the US should or shouldn’t do, with respect to their country?

You are absolutely right that the US shouldn’t base its foreign policy with regard to, say, China, on the basis of what “the majority of Iraqis” want the US to be doing in China.

But when it comes to Iraq, what the Iraqis want should matter. A great deal, in fact.

Uh…I get it. You probably think that the Iraqis don’t know what’s good for them. So Americans have to decide for the Iraqis, because as we all know, Americans just know better.

“What’s good for the USA is good for Iraq, too!”

But we just had to topple the leader of their country. IF the Iraqis wanted the US out of their country(I don’t believe they do), that desire should certainly be an important consideration with respect to US foreign policy BUT the primary concern of US foreign policy should never be driven by the opinion and desires of others but rather what is in the best interest of the US. This is a fairly simple doctrine of foreign policy that ALL nations follow that shouldn’t need explaining except the commentor seems unaware of it. We don’t want the US having to do this all over again in a few years because the US left Iraq prematurely.

… when it comes to Iraq, what the Iraqis want should matter. A great deal, in fact.
Uh…I get it. You probably think that the Iraqis don’t know what’s good for them. So Americans have to decide for the Iraqis, because as we all know, Americans just know better.

About the Iraqis knowing “what’s good for them” – Hmmm … Well they ARE a conquered people because they let themselves be governed by a murderous and reckless asshole … but they recently redeemed themselves in my mind with a democratically elected government – and quite a enthusiastic turnout in each election, too – even in the face of death threats from the terrorists. I for one say: Forgive and forget and I wish the Iraqi people all the best – as long as they don’t give free reign to another Saddam-like idiot.
 

Bush is afraid to unleash the full might of the United States military and nation. As is Hollywood and Co, just for different reasons. Bush fears it because he doesn’t want to see war in the world and destabilization or American deaths. The Hollywood boys and girls fear it because they hate to see America being empowered and rising out of victim hood status. The elites like to keep America down, otherwise the swarms of common folk might sweep them under.

No, we don’t all know that. Source please.

Anyway - I know it’s like talking to a brick wall, but I’ll try one more.

The U.S should do whatever is in it’s ‘interest’ to do - does that mean regardless of international treaties, conventions and ethics - and of course the moral obligations that the U.S holds other nations to bare?

O.K so yes - and that makes you a fascist - that’s not a leftist argument - thats just a fact.

Surely you can understand that?

I don’t mean to insult you grackle, but I’m seriously wondering if you are plagued with dislexia or ADHD.

If you are then my most sincere apologies.

By the way - have you, as a citizen and not a politican, ever considered the question of just whose ‘interest’ is being served by invading countries, stealing their resources, having the world hate you, and your government regularly relay information to you with the tactic assumption that you are an idiot?

No?

Well you should try it some time…

Why do you believe it?

Further - since you ‘believe’ that most Iraqis want the U.S in their country - why don’t you tell us why you think that -other than you don’t like polls….

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 — A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

Well for al Qaeda connections, we have the Clinton Administration’s word:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

and for Saddam’s WMD intentions we have the NYT’s revelations, as reported by Newsmax(the original NYT article is available to subscribers only):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/13/101911.shtml

During the 12-year sanction period, the Big Four were forced to sit on the sidelines while the government of Saddam Hussein cut deals with the Chinese, French, Russians and others (despite the sanctions, the United States ultimately received 37 percent of Iraq’s oil during that period, according to the independent committee that investigated the oil-for-food program, but almost all of it arrived through foreign firms). In a 1999 speech, Dick Cheney, then CEO of the oil services company Halliburton, told a London audience that the Middle East was where the West would find the additional 50 million barrels of oil per day that he predicted it would need by 2010, but, he lamented, “while even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.”

1) The NY Times ran a full gambit of stories about Saddam’s WMD programs which were false - nothing new there.

2) The evidence cited in the other article doesn’t even cite a source for the info that Al-queda were in Bagdhad for bomb-making training.

Both weak - and both completely blown out of the water by reputable intelligence agencies before and after the invasion.

Your a little bit behind, grackle…

The delay is not with the report’s authors, but the Republican majority on the committee. Finally, two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, broke ranks and voted with the Democrats to release the findings.

When you read the report you can understand why some wanted to suppress the information.

To begin with, the report says there never was any connection established between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the CIA and other agencies reported that almost immediately after 9/11. Yet the Bush administration frequently used the supposed link as a reason to attack Iraq.

A CIA report delivered to the White House late in 2002 concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating within Iraq as a threat.” Yet the very next day, Vice-President Dick Cheney charged the Iraq government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

The NY Times ran a full gambit of stories about Saddam’s WMD programs which were false - nothing new there.

I suppose the commentor is referring to the Judith Miller articles, which the anti-war crowd has succeeded in discrediting(BTW I believe that judgement to be way too hasty).

But what I’m referring to is the recent Nov/04 article in the NYT about WMD stockpiles which were never accounted for by Saddam. It was the talk of the blogosphere until Kerry’s “botched joke” took over the headlines and blew it off the news landscape.

The evidence cited in the other article doesn’t even cite a source for the info that Al-Qaeda were in Baghdad for bomb-making training.

Yes the article DOES cite sources, here’s the relevant quotes:

One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

The other pronouncement is contained in a [Clinton Administration]Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
 

A CIA report delivered to the White House late in 2002 concluded that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating within Iraq as a threat.” Yet the very next day, Vice-President Dick Cheney charged the Iraq government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

I’m VERY suspicious of anything regarding Iraq–al Qaeda connections coming from the CIA. This is the agency that sent a known Bush hater to Niger to investigate the Iraq-yellowcake purchase attempt. That decision was no accident.

But as the commentor has mentioned the CIA it should be noted that the CIA has itself documented many contacts and meetings between members of Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda operatives, as delineated in the link below.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html

And my gosh I thought everyone, not just Christopher Hitchins, knew about Saddam’s harboring of Abu Nidal. Hitch interviewed him in Baghdad in the quarters provided to him by Saddam’s regime. I think we must classify Abu Nidal as a terrorist, must’nt we?
 

Not that the exact date is germane to anything but it IS important to be as accurate as possible in all details.

Basically, the NYT article under discussion, in an attempt to discredit Bush INADVERDANTLY(that’s what’s so rich) proved the legitimacy of translated captured documents that reveal explosive things about Iraq, WMD, al Qaeda & terrorists. It makes for fascinating reading. The result of the article was the documents are no longer accessible, which may have been the real intent of the article, to stop the flow of this horrendous and embarrassing(to the anti-war Bush crowd and to the CIA) information coming from those documents.

Speaking of details, the article goes into detail about the issues of Iraq/al Qaeda/WMD under discussion and explains it more thoroughly than is practical in HaloScan.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008423.php

Other recommended readings:

From Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi -
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-7-2004_pg4_3

Wall Street Journal -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

Re. oil, it’s a finite and vital resource, which at some point this century will become priceless. By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq, the USA ensures that it will enjoy unmediated access throughout the century, should the international structures governing oil trade collapse. The neocon strategy is measured in decades, not years.

Given the points above, Hussein’s relatively secular rule vis-a-vis Iraq’s critical natural resource, it’s tough to stomach blogs that cite memos that the IIS “garnered from one of its Afghan contacts,” when there’s an elephant in the room.

Found an interesting, off-topic interview in an academic journal and am posting it next.

New Perspectives Quarterly
Vol: 22, Issue: 1, January 2005

NPQ | You successfully negotiated the release of hostages from Hezbollah in Beirut in the late 1980s and early 1990s.What differences do you see in the kidnappings and terrorism then and in Iraq and elsewhere today?

GIANDOMENICO PICCO | The basic distinction between the terrorists of that earlier era in Beirut and terrorists today is the former, like Hezbollah, were “tactical” and the latter, like Al Qaeda, are “strategic.”

Tactical terrorists have a precise, well-known and unchangable political objective— such as getting the Israelis out of Lebanon or the British out of Ireland. The strategic terrorists have only a cosmic objective—the Islamization of you and me. As Ayman al-Zawahiri has said, jihadists like Al Qaeda are “Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner.” Their goals are changable for tactical advantage. For example, the Palestinian issue never entered the Al Qaeda literature until ….. Now there are varieties of kidnappings and beheadings across Iraq. They adjust their targets over time. The second distinction is the identification of the enemy. Tactical terrorists like the IRA, the ETA and the Hezbollah were very careful not to multiply their enemies. They thus very narrowly identified their well-known enemies, for example British troops in Ireland or government officials in Bilbao. Strategic terrorists like Al Qaeda hit out broadly—from the Shia tribes in Afghanistan when they were with the Taliban to Americans in New York to Indians in Kashmir to Australian tourists in Bali to commuters in Madrid to government offices in Saudi Arabia. They have no concerns about multiplying their enemies because they are against anyone who is not with them.

The third distinction is that the tactical terrorists are well known to their enemies and negotiate with them directly or indirectly. “Negotiation” is not a word that exists in the vocabulary of the strategic terrorists. In my experience over the past .. years, most of the hostages taken by tactical Shia groups have eventually been released. The hostages of Al Qaeda-type groups have mostly been brutally killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. That is why we should not even try to negotiate with them.

A fourth and vital distinction is that tactical terrorists are rooted in territory; they are stakeholders in the lands where they operate. In practice, this means they usually have a political wing as well as a military wing. Hezbollah even has a broad network of welfare organizations for their constituency. They run businesses, hospitals and schools as part of an infrastructure, not just for show. The strategic terrorists are, by contrast, a virtual organization. They cannot be rooted, because that would mean their own defeat.

The practical consequence of these differences is that tactical terrorists can transform and go on to live without an enemy. Like the IRA, or at least some of it, they can give up terrorism and become a political party to achieve their objectives. Al Qaeda can’t do that. Without an enemy target, they will melt like snow. NPQ | How long can the strategic terrorists go on multiplying their enemies —from killing innocent Muslim civilians to taking French journalists— without ultimately defeating themselves?

NPQ | How long can the strategic terrorists go on multiplying their enemies — from killing innocent Muslim civilians to taking French journalists — without ultimately defeating themselves?

PICCO | Since Sept. .., their objective has been to mobilize the Muslim masses, and in particular the Arabs. They have failed. The kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq, accompanied by the demands on ending the French headscarf ban, have turned the European Muslims against them. Hezbollah and Hamas also came out strongly against the kidnapping of the two French journalists. So did many Arab leaders. So, they have managed to mobilize the Muslim masses—but against themselves!