"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week

As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4
or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq
was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad
idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess."
You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.



Depends on what you mean by "normal". The 24x7 cycle is represented by the
shallowest of resources, specifically the cable & network channels. Nobody
interested in depth considers those sources to be "normal".