Fitzgerald: Six questions about victory in Iraq

I answer "no" to 1 and don't disagree on the impacts of 2-5. However, the degree of suffering that would follow, especially with the scenarios in 2 and 4-6 would not be necessary.

Isn't it true that in order to address the threat of Islam, Muslims must change what they believe?

When Infidels help Muslims defeat other Muslims and establish peace, a belief has been changed. The Victor and Vanquished concept of Islam is powerful, but only insofar as the approach is sold to Muslims as the only way to achieve peace. Keep in mind that the Muslims on the receiving end of our anti-Jihad beheaded children, kidnapped daughters and forced sons into suicide attacks. The Infidels helped Muslims stop other Muslims from doing what Islam says the Infidels came to do. That does not completely address the all or nothing concept, but it convinces enough ordinary Youssefs that the Infidels are not the devils the fairy tales made them out to be.

When Infidels help Muslims enforce the rule of secular law and maintain peace, another belief has been changed. Islam says that there can be no law and no system of government without Allah. The rule of secular law defies this tenet of Islam because it separates religion from law altogether, as it separates religion from government as well.

When Infidels do business with Muslims to the mutual benefit of Infidel and Muslim alike, another belief has been changed. Muslims are told that Infidels are in Muslim lands to steal their treasure and enslave Muslims. In truth, the Islamic despots are the ones who enslave Muslims and that truth can be told no better than to have free Muslims profitably trading with Infidels.

Again, if we are to address the threat of Islamic Jihad, Muslims must be made to change what they believe in. I can think of no better way to change what Muslims believe in than to show them that everything they've been told is a lie.

The only victory that is important to the Idiot-in-Chief is and was his re-election in 2004. "I am a war president," announced King George back in 2003, all full of himself because he could kick Saddam's ass and get a cheap re-election because America could be counted on to re-elect a President in the middle of a war.

Think about how much death, misery and destruction have been caused directly by Georgie Boy ibn-Bush! How that man sleeps at night is beyond me.

The post 9-11 anti-Jihad crusade has been hoplessly muddled and muffled because of the Iraq adventure.

Of course Hugh is right! And that is what is so frustrating. I don't even read past the headlines when it comes to tar-baby Iraq.

We are stuck. Hugh knows what should be done, but what should be done will not be done. Instead we will try to extricate ourselves from the tar pit, toe by toe and finger by finger and it will be going on for a very very very very very very very very very very long time.

goddamnit!

And while we're at it, look at the economy! Is there one thing our Idiot-in-Chief hasn't broken! What kind of cynical, hypocritical fools put that jackass in office?

When Infidels do business with Muslims to the mutual benefit of Infidel and Muslim alike, another belief has been changed. Muslims are told that Infidels are in Muslim lands to steal their treasure and enslave Muslims.

Ask yourself: What if Iraq had gone swimmingly? What if it all played out according to King George Ibn-Bush's fantasy?

Cheap and abundant oil for the USA.
An improved security situation for America's allies in the Middle East.

Ain't gonna happen.

Oil is a world commodity. Oil prices are set in international markets based on global perceptions of global supply and global demand.

Secondly, our two largest foreign oil suppliers are Mexico and Canada. Why would we want to go halfway around the globe and invade an Arab country for oil, when there are three (don't forget Venezuela) defenseless oil-rich countries right here in this hemisphere?

Defeating an insurgency in Mexico would be a cinch, since half of them live here anyway. And Canada would probably be just fine with an American occupation, as long as we buy their beer and lose to them in Hockey. [/tongue in cheek]

Whatever you think about the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq, this was never about oil. This was about taking the fight against Jihad to the heart of Muslim lands and rubbing the Jihadies faces in the lies they've been told about us Infidels.

Hugh continues to believe that the only outcome to a US withdrawal from Iraq will be a good one. The truth is far more complex.

Possibilities include...

1) A Shia-Sunni civil war in which tens if not hundreds of thousands of refugees inundate the West. Guilt-ridden politicians in America will in all likelihood open our arms and borders to these refugees (just as we did to the Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon).

2) A possible alliance of radical Sunnis and Shia under a figure like Muqtada Al Sadr or someone else, in which Iraq becomes a base of operations against friendly regimes such as Jordan, with a likely toppling of the Heshemite throne and the establishment of a radical regime there.

3) A victory for the Shia in the post-withdrawal chaos and the establishment of Iraq as an Iranian satellite, where terrorism will be supported and financed and yet where the Iranians can claim plausible deniability (just as they do when their proxies in Lebanon perpetrate acts of terror).

4) An end to Kurdish autonomy and the renewed imposition of Arab imperialism and Islamic fundamentalism on this non-Arab minority (Hugh has expressed a desire to militarily intervene on behalf of non-Arab Muslims in Darfur...at the same time that he advocates withdrawal from Iraq).

AS I've volunteered before, Hugh may very well be right in the end, that the American expenditure of blood and treasure to prop up the unitary state in Iraq is folly. Where he is wrong is to postulate that a precipitous withdrawal from that tortured country can only have sanguinary outcomes for the USA and the West.

What if the answer to #1 is "yes" for the sole purpose of protecting the credibility of the US?

Withdrawal from Vietnam sent a message to our enemies that we were soft and a message to our friends that we were not capable of being loyal allies. The 70's were a disaster for many reasons that preceeded President Carter.

Perceptions can matter even if the underlying premise behind the perceptions is false. In other words, Hugh and others may be correct in perceiving that the U.S. would be stronger for haven't left Iraq, most around the world would see things differently, and wrongfully perceiving the U.S. to be a paper tiger is an undesirable outcome.

I agree that the occupation of Irag was not a good idea. I supported the war 100% until I encountered this site. Had I known then what I know now, I would have been against the occupation/nation building aspects of the war. However, we are where we are.

I think we should do the following:

(1) Let the surge continue for another 6 months so that skeptics continue to acknowledge the situation on the ground is largely pacified (albeit temporarily)

(2) Declare victory

(3) Announce that Iraq is on their own and that they hold their own future in their own hands.

(4) Leave

In my view, this approach alleviates the negative impact of the U.S. being chased out and the incremental commitment required is quite small given the resources already expended.

Perceptions do matter, even when those perceptions are misguided.

"What kind of cynical, hypocritical fools put that jackass in office?"

Uh, that would be I, admittedly--and sadly. But it boggles the mind to think of where we might be had we elected Bush's slippery opponent.

Anyway, we may soon long for the days when our president was merely confused and ill-informed.

Regards,

HAID

This is a falsely presented binary argument which ignores certain realities that can be reasonably predicted.

The poster ignores, and always ignores, some fatal flaws in his summations and calculations, among which are numbered, in no particular order, the following:

1. The dire implications of his theories to American and Western influence and the capitalist system underpinning that influence. After his vaunted American withdrawal, a hideous race will begin. The Russians, or the Iranians, or the Chinese, or even the Wahhabis, will exert whatever maneuvering/violence/schemes they might to fill the void left in the region. Ultimately the current (imperfect but largely benign) influence which the US exerts over oil supply and stability will be replaced with a far more dangerous regime of a very sinister flavor. That regime will inevitably be far worse than the current situation, and it will be completely inimical to America's goals and interests.

If the poster deplores (as I do) the staggering unearned windfalls fueling Jihad today -- just wait to see his vain, vein popping vexation as the money fueling Jihad multiplies exponentially as Chinese, or Russian, or Iranian, or Saudi, or European villains enter to manipulate the oil markets to benefit themselves and to harm and subvert a feckless America. Osama's game isn't just to see America weakened and subverted. He, along with Saddam, Putin, and other global criminals understand this reality: If control to oil access and oil markets can be wrenched from America's benign oversight -- the world becomes their oyster. American withdrawal tacitly enables whichever villain emerges on top to exploit access to the supply of oil as their plaything. By fiat, that player becomes King of the World. Our withdrawal sets in motion a catastrophic series of events which will make it possible for a single hideous player to emerge with 70-80% of global oil resources under his control.

2. For a time, Muslims may be kicked back on their asses, but so what? If, say, Russia or China emerge on top of that oil race precipitated by American withdrawal, who's to say they won't then exploit the weapon of Islam's hatred of the West in the exact same manner the Muslims do today? And the frictions among Muslims which are envisioned as inevitable are by no means inevitable. Ironically, an American withdrawal makes the poster's other plank of fostering these inter-Islamic frictions much harder for America to implement. And our withdrawal axiomatically guarantees that we won't be in a strong position to bring that fracturing about in any event. Such cultivation will be left to happenstance, or, if they choose, it will be left to the other powers who fill our void (such as Russia, China, Europe) to bring such about. Yet why would such actors squander the splendid opportunity which Islamic hatred of America offers them? Surely such actors are far more likely to exploit Islam's hatred of America to keep us fully occupied while they ascend in our absence!?

There are other flaws, but I'm impressed sufficiently with the calamities unleashed in 1 & 2 to leave it at that.

"The dire implications of his [i.e., Hugh's] theories [sic] to American and Western influence and the capitalist system underpinning that influence. After his vaunted American withdrawal, a hideous race will begin. The Russians, or the Iranians, or the Chinese, or even the Wahhabis, will exert whatever maneuvering/violence/schemes they might to fill the void left in the region. Ultimately the current (imperfect but largely benign) influence which the US exerts over oil supply and stability will be replaced with a far more dangerous regime of a very sinister flavor."
-- from a posting above

A few points:

1) You meniont Russia, and China, and the Iranians. Let's begin with Iran. America has managed to knock out both the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein, thus removing Iran's two great enemies that formerly bookended it. Furthermore, while Afghanistan may yet revert to Taliban control, the same Taliban are unlikely to be able to assume the kind of complete control, with the outside world oblivious, as they formerly had, and will not be able to resume massacring the Shi'a Hazara as they were doing when the American invasion so rudely interrupted. And they are unlikely, as well, to be able to move power to the border of Iran or in any way threaten Iran, now that they will be watched, even if they regain power, night and day by satellite and drone.

Meanwhile, not only have the two most immediate enemies of Iran been removed by the American forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but the American determination to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq meant, of course, that the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 60-65% of the population, would inherit Iraq -- and so they have. And the Americans, in disbanding the Sunni-officered army, further strengthened the Shi'a. And in distributing weapons, and in training the largely Shi'a "Iraqi" police, and the many Shi'a now in the "Iraqi" army, the Americans have unwittingly provided the Shi'a with the tools and training they need to maintain their newly-acquired dominance over the Sunnis. This too helps Iran.

Finally, the continued American presence in Iraq, and monomaniacal focus on that country, and the evident failure of American plans and predictions for Iraq, have not made more likely, but made much likely, any American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Indeed, the continued American presence in Iraq is the single greatest obstacle to such a bombing, because those soldiers are essentially hostages to Iranian retaliation, whether from Iran, or from Iranian agents in Iraq, or from Iraqis allied to Iran in Iraq. And the Americans know it.

The single greatest impediment to destroying militarily Iran's nuclear project is the continued presence of American soldiers in Iraq.

2) What about Russia? Again, Russia under Gorbachov, and then Yeltsin, had a much greater chance of becoming a sustainable democracy than Iraq ever did. Surely the lack of attention to Russia, over the past five years, with the American preoccupation with Iraq, a very minor matter given not only exaggerated attention, but has used up huge amounts of money, some $880 billion to date (this figure includes committed future costs, such as lifetime care for the seriously wounded), which is more than the total all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States. Meanwhile the Russian democrats are on the run, a KGB agent is in power and people like him have assumed greater and greater control. And you think that if America staunches the flow of money and weaponry and American casualties, that if it ceases to squander men, money, and materiel, this will not help the United States, but instead will somehow allow Russia to “enter the Middle East” – enter and do what exactly? Do you think Russia can cease the oilfields of Iraq and Iran? Do you think that the Iranian government trusts the Russians? Do you think Iranians have forgotten about the Soviet seizure of much of northern Iran after World War II – and the fact that only the Americans were able to pressure them into leaving? And do you think Russia actually is in desperate need for other sources of oil? And wouldn’t Russia benefit more if internecine warfare in Iraq, and involving surrounding countries, led to some lessening of production in the Middle East, which could only benefit the world’s largest producer of oil, Russia? You make pronouncements about what will happen, suggest scare scenarios, but do not offer any details which we can examine, analyze, pass judgment.

3) And the same goes for China. While the Americans have been stuck to Tarbaby Iraq, which is now looking more and more like the La Brea Tar Pit, and the Bush Administration (and even the wrongheaded enemies of the Bush Administration) looking like a dinosaur headed for premature fossildom, the Chinese have been waging their economic war everywhere, relentlessly, seemingly under the American radar. There are Chinese economic colonies, loyal to Beijing and thus quite different from the Chinese immigrants in the past, all over Italy, taking over whole areas of manufacture, and making sure that everything from the silk industry of Como to the pots and pans sold on television are forced to succumb to Chinese, rather than Italian suppliers. And there are similar colonies all over the rest of Western Europe, but not only there. Go to Belize, and see what the Chinese are doing. Go all over black Africa, and see what the Chinese are doing, everywhere, setting up factories, but really not supplying employment to the locals, but rather engaged in the wholesale exploitation of the resources of sub-Saharan Africa. There is a race on for those resources, akin to the “Scramble for Africa” among the European powers in the latter part of the 19th century. But in this scramble or race, there is really only one entrant: China.

Think about how the American involvement in Iraq looks to the Chinese. They can’t believe their luck. They need oil just the way the Americans do. And they get it just the way the Americans do – by offering the market price. But only the Americans think that it is their responsibility to provide Good Government in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, and that they also have a need to placate such oil-producers as Saudi Arabia in a hundred different ways, when there is no such need. Saudi Arabia sells oil to America for exactly the same market price that it sells to everyone else. Indeed, Israeel, despite the Arab and Muslim economic boycott, pays no more than the world market price when it buys oil from abroad. It is a myth that the Americans need to curry favor with any oil producer, and it is a myth, as well, that it is a peculiarly American responsibility – at a cost so far of some $880 billion – to prevent “chaos” and “instability” in the Middle East because, it is still devoutly believed by some, and repeated by many, that such “instability” and “chaos” will somehow damage us. No it won’t. As long as the chaos and instability is general, it will harm, in the first place, the countries – that is, the Muslim countries – who succumb to such chaos, confusion, instability. If Saudi Arabia has to spend more of its considerable discretionary income on protecting itself from Iran and other Shi’a enemies, or just to build a wall along its border, that is money that will not be available to it to pay for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da’wa, and armies of Western hirelings – that is, less it will have to conduct, with the instrument of its Money Weapon, Jihad through non-violent but still menacing means, with a dangerous-to-Infidels goal, throughout the world. And that of course is a good thing. And if the Al-Saud are worried about a Shi’a crescent, and they are, though they are taking pains not to use the word “Shi’a” but rather speaking of the “Persians” who are the ancient enemies of the “Arabs,” (in this way, they are attempting to appeal to the sense of “uruba” or “arabness” of Iraqi Shi’a, and also of course are carefully avoiding further inflaming the Shi’a who live in the oil-bearing region of the Easstern Province, Al-Hasa, of Saudi Arabia itself), that is a good thing for us.

But the Chinese see the Americans as spending all this money to ensure “Middle Eastern stability” so that oil can continue to be produced in the same quantities, at more or less the same prices. Now China is more of a beneficiary of that outcome than is the United States itself. Because China’s need for oil keeps going up. But the United States has oil in Alaska, oil in the Gulf of Mexico, oil from Canada, oil from Nigeria. China, far more than the United States itself, would benefit from American efforts to dampen down “instability” – if one agrees (and I do not) that “stability” furthers the long-term interests of oil-consuming nations.

Your scare-scenarios make no sense. At the moment, Uncle Sam is Uncle Sap, using up its resources, diverting its attention, being held back from attacking Iran, and being observbed, with malice and glee, by both Russia and China. What would really alarm both of them is if we withdrew our troops from Iraq, and demonstrated a steely ruthlessness instead of Bush’s blend of confusion and hopeless sentimentalism about “ordinary moms and dads” in the Middle East. That would scare the Russians, and especially the economic warriors of China, no end.

Hugh wrote:

"Think about how the American involvement in Iraq looks to the Chinese. They can’t believe their luck. They need oil just the way the Americans do. And they get it just the way the Americans do – by offering the market price. But only the Americans think that it is their responsibility to provide Good Government in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, and that they also have a need to placate such oil-producers as Saudi Arabia in a hundred different ways, when there is no such need."

Agreed. The truth is painful to many, it seems.

I appreciate the depth and wisdom of Hug's and Dave's insight.
Muslims never see anything wrong with themselves.
I have read the press of Muslim countries in languages that are conveniently not translated, and there consistently, the war in Iraq is portrayed as a war of occupation. They label the American forces as "imperialists" and "colonialists" and the present Iraqi government as a sad puppet regime, a humiliated victim of the evil designs of the infidels.
It is nothing short of depressing, but the truth is that no good intention of the US is going to ever be perceived as such by the Islamic media.

Hugh

Nice reply...waited all night between work for that and well worth it. I knew sort of what you would say but still you just don't know until you witness it.

Bravo! Need to save this one. Puts it in a clear level headed way which I could never accomplish.

The Chinese and Russians are not going to anything if we leave Babylon. All it means is the USA is back from the asylum...so look out.

Hugh's comments are always well expressed and thorough. I think his synopsis of Russian and Chinese attitudes towards U.S. involvement in Iraq are accurate. However, I disagree with the idea that U.S. presence in Iraq presents an obstacle to military operations against Iran.

Provoking Iranian retaliation would probably be one of the objectives of military strikes, so that the retaliatory actions could be met with crushing counteroffensive maneuvers and while being used for propaganda purposes in Iraq and internationally.

Getting back to the original topic, and my initial response: If the United States is successful in obliterating Al Qaeda in Iraq, what would the impact be of forcing global Jihad to watch the AQ network have its face rubbed in its own lies? AQI is currently having its head ripped off and the U.S. is defecating down the Jihadists' neck. It is all happening right in the heart of ancient Islam, and it is happening with Muslims doing as much of the ass-kicking as the infidels.

If getting Muslims to change what they believe is the key to neutralizing global Jihad, then certainly, one way to do that is to prove everything they've ever been told about us mongrel Infidels is dead wrong.

About that $880 million price tag. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money. But keep in mind that the U.S. economy has an estimated gross annual output of just under 14 trillion. In terms of nominal expenditures, the price tag is indeed the highest. But in terms of its impact on the economic system that supports it... This economy leaks more than it costs to fight in Iraq.

"Getting back to the original topic, and my initial response: If the United States is successful in obliterating Al Qaeda in Iraq, what would the impact be of forcing global Jihad to watch the AQ network have its face rubbed in its own lies? AQI is currently having its head ripped off and the U.S. is defecating down the Jihadists' neck. It is all happening right in the heart of ancient Islam, and it is happening with Muslims doing as much of the ass-kicking as the infidels.

If getting Muslims to change what they believe is the key to neutralizing global Jihad, then certainly, one way to do that is to prove everything they've ever been told about us mongrel Infidels is dead wrong"

-------------

"If the US is successful in obliterating Al Qaeda in Iraq"

This isn't going to happen. Al Qaeda is in Iraq and the US won't be "obliterating" them out of Iraq.

How can you realistically expect Muslims to change? How can they continue to be Muslims if they change their ideology? Who is going to argue with Gods commands? Who knows Islam more than their own Prophet? The only way Muslims will change their feelings towards the kafur is if they cease being Muslims. They can become the hypocrites Muhammad warned about, and commanded to be killed.

Stay real Dave.

"Meanwhile, not only have the two most immediate enemies of Iran been removed by the American forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan"

Immediate enemies.

It seems that by removing Saddam, we've in fact eliminated a degenerate and largely impotent buffer between the epicenter of Wahhabi Islam in Saudi Arabia and the Shiias in Iran. If anything, we've done much to foster that "exploit the fractures" theme despite ourselves. Iran's existence has become exponentially more complicated because of our presence, and that is demonstrably an improvement from the former arrangement. Isn't it also true that America, by Iran's own admission her worst enemy, is now a much more "immediate enemy" to the Mullahs than those former exhausted cavemen, Saddam and the Taliban, who recently were far more focused on murdering us than murdering the Mullahs in Iran? So much for "immediate enemies".

Poised as we are on Iran's front porch in Iraq, on Iran's back porch in Afghanistan, and having sweet tea with Iran's next door neighbors in Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, isn't that much more immediately a threat to Tehran than the former arrangement? Why then advocate leaving Iran's front porch? It makes no sense, yet the poster, ever only filled with contempt for American actions, seems to think that withdrawing from Iraq will make it easier to project power (which would most likely be mainly air power) against the Iranian regime. Withdrawal won't make the Mullahs tremble, it will fill them with ecstasy. Wintness Ahmadinijad of recent days. You make a good point viz. squandering money and lives in Iraq, but an illogical argument viz. leaving Iraq. The ability of America to project air power into Iran is augmented and made much more threatening by presence also of boots in Iraq. Ahmadinijad himself chortles with glee at the prospect of our withdrawal and the resultant "power vacuum" which he anticipates soon given the ever shriller defeatists.

And, writing of "contempt for American actions", we get:

Q. "What about Russia? Again, Russia under Gorbachov, and then Yeltsin, had a much greater chance of becoming a sustainable democracy than Iraq ever did. Surely the lack of attention to Russia, over the past five years, with the American preoccupation with Iraq, etc. "

A. Laughable. So the congenital failures of Russia magically become America's fault in your mind? This is simply typical America-bashing of the exact same variety from those other comfortable cozy critics in their ivory minarets. Russia's failures are part and parcel of the failures of the Russian character, and little has changed in that frozen wonderland for a thousand years. We should no more be pouring $1 trillion into Russia's unfixable and bottomless maw than we should be pouring $1 trillion into Islam's various maws -- so please don't assign arguments to me which I have not made. Also, I would never ague that Bush has paid sufficient attention to Russia, nor to China, nor to the growing red menace in our own hemisphere. He is a very mediocre President -- and you love to set up the straw man that I'm defending him in order to fume and rant. But despite all this, the American cop may not be a perfect cop -- but even under the dimwitted Bush, he's vastly superior to that Russian cop, or that Iranian cop, or that Saudi Cop, or that Chinese cop, all of whom are up for a big promotion if America leaves the beat as you crave. The Iranians surely do not trust or love the Russians any better than they love us -- but rest assured, they fear those Russians and their craziness and unpredictability more than they fear us, and are more likely to make mutually beneficial arrangements with those Russians than they will ever make with us.

We should do what's necessary to make the Iranians, and ALL Muslim fascists, fear us. The catastrophe of the Iraq war is not in the action of removing Saddam, nor in our remaining in Iraq, but in showing our softer gentler side to those fascist Muslims. It should not be to "win their hearts and minds", but to make their hearts tremble, and their minds freeze up -- that's what America should be about in the Middle East. It should and can be done in appearance almost exactly the way we are doing it now -- but it should be more stand-offish, far less risky and costly to our citizen soldiers, and filled with all kinds of nice words about "winning their hearts and minds" while slaughtering our opponents without mercy whenever and wherever we find them.

Q. "Do you think Russia can cease the oilfields (sic) of Iraq and Iran?"

A. No, and I have said so. Thank you for supporting my thesis that they crave to control those oil resources, and will, in our absence, exert great efforts to control them.

Q. "Do you think that the Iranian government trusts the Russians?"

A. No, as I have stated with ample embellishments.

Q. "Do you think Iranians have forgotten about the Soviet seizure of much of northern Iran after World War II – and the fact that only the Americans were able to pressure them into leaving?"

A. No, but thanks again for making my point. This confirms that the Russians are congenitally disposed to expand their empire, and that they attach especial importance to controlling oil resources for extremely obvious reasons.

Q. "And do you think Russia actually is in desperate need for other sources of oil?"

A. Refer to various responses of mine and rhetoric of yours above, (e.g. "cease the oilfields (sic)", "Do you think that the Iranian government trusts the Russians?", "... the Soviet seizure of much of northern Iran ...", & co.) for the answer to this mystery.

Q. "And wouldn’t Russia benefit more if internecine warfare in Iraq, and involving surrounding countries, led to some lessening of production in the Middle East, which could only benefit the world’s largest producer of oil, Russia?"

A. Not nearly so much as they'd benefit by Russian hegemony over the ME, (which they've historically craved as you yourself attest -- but you left out scads of other examples such Russian attempts at domination of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, etc. in addition to that aforementioned seizure of Persia, et al...) So Russia craves control of those ME oil resources, yet you pretend that they will sit on their hands, and then provide examples of how and why they won't.

Which brings me to:

"You make pronouncements about what will happen, suggest scare scenarios, but do not offer any details which we can examine, analyze, pass judgment."

Really now. That's somewhat overheated. Refer to original post, and responses above. Seems like I've provided, not only enough for you to examine, analyze, and judge, but it also seems like you have much to offer to support my thesis, and counter your own theory of the goodness of America's withdrawal.

As for China:

"But in this scramble or race, there is really only one entrant: China."

Thanks for examining this, analyzing this, and passing judgment favorably on this. But, again, please don't attach to me arguments I have not made. I think Bush has been criminally negligent in his approach towards the Chinese volcano.

"Your scare-scenarios make no sense."

Yet I'm strangely grateful to you for making some strong arguments supporting my "scare-scenarios" as you call them.

"At the moment, Uncle Sam is Uncle Sap, using up its resources, diverting its attention, being held back from attacking Iran, and being observbed, (sic) with malice and glee, by both Russia and China. What would really alarm both of them is if we withdrew our troops from Iraq, and demonstrated a steely ruthlessness instead of Bush’s blend of confusion and hopeless sentimentalism about “ordinary moms and dads” in the Middle East. That would scare the Russians, and especially the economic warriors of China, no end. "

Yet more oblique consensus on my theme. I'm all for instilling fear and fostering worry among our adversaries. Withdrawing from Iraq as you propose is not a recipe for such.