i think i would agree and also add that we would have to increase our troop presence. which in turn may not make the afghani people happy. would also require more supplies being airlifted and trucked thru un-friendly territory adding more targets and more tail than warfighters.

Not only would there be an additional number of insurgents, they would be stronger as well. This could cause a synergistic effect making them bolder to act and harder to defeat. A man alone has only his strength, his weapons, and his abilities. Two or more can use the strength of one to offset the weakness of another. Your point about Sadam's aid would certainly come in to play as well. Finally, any success they would have would fuel them to have more.

I found this in today's open post on LGF.

What has changed? The presidents...and the salckened grip of liberals on the political machinery of the nation.

ABC News Reports Linking al-Qeada and Saddam (an audio clip....

The Russians lost 38,000 troops in Afghanistan, the terrain is close to impossible for a standing Army to traverse. No one opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan because every Army that ever tried to tame it lost. I could almost hear the Russians and Chinese on the UN security council celebrate,the "US was going to get its a$$ kicked good".

Shifting the Jihadi focus away from Afghanistan(eventually they would have gotten funding from Iraq or other sympathetic country), to a front line Arab country with a terrain that is much more amenable to a standing Army was a stroke of genious. The neighborhood dictators can't spare any resources for Afghanistan, Iraq is too important to them.

Agreed, to a point. I'd rather fight them in Iraq than in Afghanistan, the social and geographical terrain is much more in our favor in the flat, open desert of Mesopotamia.

On the other hand, it is a much simpler problem for your average Arab jihadi to travel overland to Iraq via Syria, than it is to get to Afghanistan via Pakistan.

Doesn't really matter much, in the long term. We're ultimately going to defeat this enemy not by force of arms, but by the slow process of political and social transformation in the Islamic world. We've already basically won this battle in Turkey, Dubai, Bahrain, and parts of Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and even Egypt. It's only a matter of time before the rest of Islamic civilization follows suit.

The alternative scenario is unthinkable: that Islam will transform the West to fit their template. That's just not gonna happen -- at least, not outside a few isolated spots in Western Europe...

Just previous to the run up of the war , Zarquawi wasn't even a threat,( according to the MSM ) Ansar wasn't even considered as al queda, The news made it apear that Bush was just pulling someone out of his hat so he had an actual enemy in Iraq.

Most of the news and media never checked into the reports by kurds in the area. Had they , the news and media would know the Kurds had actual fears. Irrational fear wouldn't make them actually afraid of chemicle attacks by ansar-al-islam.

We joke here in the US about duct tape and plastic, but Kurds were using this as their only defence against Ansar. Taking up most of a weeks allowance for food to purchase it.

Had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be in power, Ansar would now hold the Kudish stronghold mountain fortress.( It had been taken by Ansar)

Ansar would be actively working to export terror to Europe. Even more so than now. Europe would be seeing more riacin attacks as well as other attacks.

Cooperation with Jordan would not be occuring as it is. The Chemicle attack against Jordan may not have only succeeded, it could have made it's way all the way to Israel. ( because Israel would still be on attack from Iraq, by Saddams Paid suicide bombers.

These are just a few things the US actually stopped by being in Iraq.

Not taking into account all the other things we have found out since we have been there.

Have you seen anybody saying thatliberating Afghanistan has created more terrorists? It would seem to me if you apply the logic that Islamofacists were upset when the supposedly "secular" Saddam was removed, shouldn't they be even more upset by a real Islamofacist's government being deposed?

On Afghanistan, The Northern Alliance warned the US that if we set down 150,000 troops there, we would be considered and occupyer, and we could not expect their cooperation. We could expect to be fighting them as well. The were already ramped up from their leader being killed on Sept 9th (?) Just before 9-11.

Also , Pakistan and US had not restored diplomatic relations, and had been backing the taliban. Pakistan's ISS was in direct support , and cooperation with them at that time.

We could be in war with Pakistan ( a nuclear power ) today . Or Pak, India could still be in nuclear confrontation. Pakistan still has an existant threat today from it's support of the Taliban. It's government is in direct confrontation with it's Northern Provence. There was alot more involved in these two wars than just the immidiate countries involved. Pakistani cooperation , and support for Al-queda isn't 100% , but it is much better today , than it would be if we took an alternate route.

It may be easier for them to get to Iraq than Afganistan, and therefore all of that are attacking in Iraq might not have come over to Afganistan, but they would be attacking us here in the US, or in other countries.

I would rather have them attacking well armed soldiers in Baghdad, or innocent Iraqis in Baghdad (which will just get the Iraqis ticked off at them), than attacking innocent citizens in Beaumont, Bakersfield, or even Boston.

I would rather have them in Tikrit than Tulsa, Tallahasse, or Texas City

I would rather have them in Karkuk or Karbala, rather than Kansas City, etc.

Don,

Just because you prefer it, does not mean the Iraqi people do too.

I'm sure most of them are delighted that Saddam is gone. But this was not a war of their choosing, and I bet many of them resent being forced into the front lines of another country's war on terror.

I'm sure most Iraqis are "ticked off" with the terrorists. But that does not necessarily translate into support for U.S. troops.

If they're not on your side, why fight on their behalf?

I have actually used Greyhawk's arguement before against people opposed to why the US went to war in Iraq so quickly. I think part of the reason was to divide the terrorist's resources to make them choose which area they were going to concentrate on because they do not have the resources to concentrate on both. So with their resources divided we are making steady progress, despite what the MSM would want you to believe, in the defeat of these terrorists.

whats4lunch...

I don't see it as the Iraqis being "forced into another country's War on Terror". The Iraqi people are as much a part of the GWOT as we are - removing Saddam Hussein from power liberated millions of people and ended the reign of one of the most terrible dictators on the planet. It dried up funding and support for terrorists world-wide and helped motivate Lybia into dismantling their nuclear weapons program.

The majority of Iraqis (and Afghanis) are greatful to have been freed from opression and support us being there, though not as an "occupying force". They want our help - the appreciate our help. Hopefully, one day soon, they will learn to do for themselves. In that respect, we are fighting on their behalf and we do have their support.

I agree. In fact I think the terrorists are heading more and more to Afghanistan now because Iraq is too hot.

I agree and have thought this since the beginning. It was in fact opening a second front on the Jihadists. Keeping in mind that in Afghanistan they had set up bases, ammunition, recruitment lines, supply and egress routes and basically mountain fortresses that, as one has already pointed out, would be very difficult to search, identify and route even with our advanced weapons, daisy cutters, MOABs, etc.

In Iraq, they had to go to all the trouble of re-establishing these supply lines, entry and egress, set up safe houses, etc.

In Iraq, there may be thousands of Saddam's "ammo dumps" to choose from, but it's flat and open and a lot more people, thus, while easy for them to "swim" in the population based on ethnicity and language, not as easy to stay hidden. Also, while there is much discussion about Iraqi tribalism, having 3/4 population unfriendly to sunni/salafi makes it a fore gone conclusion that these men will get their asses kicked.

One must wonder, on any given day, if Zarqawi really thinks he can win or cause a "draw". One must also wonder if Zarqawi or OBL's underlings are asking him to produce "benchmarks" by which they can measure their success and declare "victory".