HEY Countdown: Independent wants a follow-up on the Dictator Directive. Independent is deserving by way of the diplomacy shown here. Please.

Pam, I love semi-sweet too. Inde, thanks, and right now, budgets in my house are tight so we have been eating chili for a week and have another week to go. LOL

Independent - Yes!! I have been so caught up in "rage" that I have not mentioned this since last week. Countdown, will you PLEASE follow up and cover the Dictator Directive? This is truly a most terrifying directive, in conjunction with it being held by a completely deranged man in the White House!!

Pam, I agree. The war needs to end. We simply disagree on how to do it. I truly believe that if we walk away hundreds of thousands more will die , albiet all Iraqis. I also think that the terrorist cannot be left unchecked. An honest disagreement. Now I have a major disagreement with your assessment of our current president, especially compared to former presidents. If Carter and Clinton would not have ignored the problems maybe the current president would not have to worry about protecting America from the jihadists. I admit that I said probably much worse things about Carter when he ignored our hostages, allowed 21% prime rate and 12% inflation, then to top it off gave away the Panama Canal. So there, we can have a civilized discussion with totally opposite points of view.

Bush’s surge has brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. The Iraq conflict cannot end in a positive way without Iranian involvement, hopefully those opposed to the war will support the administration’s effort at diplomacy with Iran. The negotiations will probably leave Iran with more power in the region that is comfortable, but that is the price we will have to pay for the ill-advised adventure.

Larry from Charleston, let me start with this. Osama bin Muhammed bin Laden is a product of George H. W. Bush. So were the Taliban. Clinton hardly ignored the problem of bin Laden, but had problems taking him out. Our CIA, thanks to Regan and Bush, was not only staffed heavily with Republicans who didn't care what Clinton thought, but had a decided lack of Middle Eastern opperatives. Most of our opperatives were set up for Eastern Europe and Russia, and the rest were trained for China. Even after eight years, Clinton was not able to change the CIA all that much. In 1998, Clinton ordered the hit on bin Laden, and the CIA refused to do it. They quibbled about whether or not they could legally do so. The law is clear that the CIA cannot take out a standing head of state. Bin Laden, a former client of the CIA Ghost Wars is a great book, by the way), was semi-protected by that past association. Clinton then ordered the creation of the Hellfire Missle and the drone aircraft that carry them. Unfortunately, they were both ready for deployment a month after Clinton left office and Bush had recinded the order to kill bin Laden. One of Regan's national security advisors once said of Clinton that he was possibly too obsessed with taking down bin Laden. Clinton successfully took down Al-Qaida's predecessor organization and jailed their leaders. With the help of other nations, he managed to get the men who bombed the Cole and have them arrested, tried and some sentenced to death. I hardly think that Clinton ignored the issue.

Larry: Kudos man. Some healthy disagreement and perhaps some good points. I like it. Your post is not addressed to me but to Pam, but thanks. As for me Larry, not so sure any President could have stopped the current wave of terrorism. This is a new age and those who chose to be our enemies, for whatever reason, have learned the only kind of war that they can sustain for a period of time is a terroist war. The way to fight it off is to turn one against the other so they remain disorgainized and destroy the strength and capabilities of each other. They cannot be beaten using old conventional war tactics. You can slay many, but you cannot slay them all. And it is the beliefs they hold that keep them alive and active, not the numbers they have to pit against their proclaimed enemies. There is a deep divide and suspicion between east and west that goes back centuries, and it will not be alleviated until the children in all parts of the world are taught kindness and tolerance rather than hatred.

Larry - cool: Yes, civilized. I disagree that Carter and Clinton ignored the problems but find it very interesting that you omit the 8 years between them when Reagan was in office. Also, I believe but am willing to be corrected if I am wrong, that you will find that Carter did not ignore the hostages. I remember this vividly as I was living in DC at the time. We started a military action to rescue them that was disastrous because our equipment and our forces were not appropriate to the terrain. Remember the tanks stuck in the sand? I don't like to blame our military but I remember thinking at the time that we should have known better. Our Military told Carter that we could successfully free the hostages via this approach and we failed. Then we went into serious negotiations. Read Old Man Bush's part in all this sometime. Almost the entire Carter presidency was overwhelmed by the Iran issue. The economics had been heading in those directions for the previous 12 years and Carter was in office for only 4. I can not blame him for those items. I, even to this date, have not decided how I feel about the Canal. In any event, even if you disagree on how Carter and Clinton handled any of this, what I don't think you will disagree with is that they both handled things legally and within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Now, contrasting that with the current administration, what has this administration done for the country in the last 6 years? Everything they have done, as far as I can see, has been if not outright unconstitutional at least has been on the very borderline. The best I can say for them is that they were incompetent. The worst is that they have destroyed the very doctrine of goverment upon which the country was founded. I sincerely want to hear back specifics that would refute my statements. I really mean that. If I can find something that I can point to that means Mr. Bush is not an outright criminal, I will sleep better. Thank you.

Larry – Well at least it’s a start. Yes, we strongly disagree on how this war should end; however, this “war” should have never begun. I don’t know if we agree there. I agree that thousands more Iraqis will die; however, I sincerely believe they will die if we remain. The situation in Iraq is a civil war now and the very fact that George W. Bush ignored advice from seasoned experts regarding the religious conflicts, dating hundreds of years; ignored advice that stated exactly what would happen after Sadaam was overthrown; ignored intelligence reports clearly stating Sadaam Hussein most likely DID NOT possess WMD; ignored military advice regarding the number of troops needed after the overthrow of the regime, to the degree these people were fired or demoted; refuses to see that he cannot win based on an Iraqi Civil War (caused by him) and is only sending more Americans to their deaths and refuses to listen to any advice that doesn’t fit in with his “plan” is, in my opinion, criminal. I take exception with what you said regarding President Clinton. Clinton was chastised, ridiculed and told he was overreacting by the Republican Congress regarding Osama bin Laden regarding Clinton’s belief bin Laden was an imminent threat to the United States. It is on the record Larry. One member of Congress, whose name I cannot recall right now but I will look up, flat out told President Clinton he was “wagging the tail” about bin Laden in “Clinton’s attempts to divert his personal problems”. This is also on the record Larry. President Clinton did try to kill bin Laden and the Bush Administration came to office and acted like their s**t didn’t stink, Clinton was stupid and George W. Bush and his Administration did NOTHING and completely dropped the ball on bin Laden. President Clinton has admitted he failed, but stated “at least I tried, I tried and I failed.” I could NEVER imagine those words coming out of the mouth of George W. Bush. Moving on to President Carter, I agree inflation was high, interest rates were high and the hostage crisis sealed his fate. I STRONLY disagree with your statement , “Carter ignored our hostages.” When Carter’s rescue mission failed, several military brass stated it was a brilliant plan; however, one plane turned around because the pilot felt he was entering a dangerous sand storm. This proved incorrect; however, the mission failed and badly. You cannot blame that on President Carter, and again, many military brass have stated that President Carter was not to blame. Also, he did not ignore the hostages Larry and that is an unfair statement. One hostage, interviewed several years ago, stated that he HATED Carter during the crisis; however, after he was released and read much of what had happened, he thanked President Carter personally. The hostage also told Carter, “I know President Carter you lost the election because of me”. President Carter told him, “I cared MORE about your safe return than my re-election.” The hostage then stated, “ I will always be grateful to him (Carter) for my life.” I also believe President Carter is THE most honest and decent president this country has ever had. The Panama Canal was a blunder and I agree. However, nothing that Presidents Carter or Clinton did, in my opinion, even comes close to the atrocities of George W. Bush. Also, it does bother me that Reagan/Bush are given a “pass” on the stupendous deficit they created from the right, in addition to the horrible economy under George Herbert Walker Bush; however, President Carter is always slammed about high inflation and interest rates from the same people on the right. In addition, President Clinton receives ZERO credit for eliminating the deficit and leaving office with a surplus from the right Can you explain that to me Larry? Also, on a final note, I sincerely believe many have mistakenly blamed President Carter directly for the hostage crisis and have never let this animosity go. I also believe they are wrong. Thank you again Larry.

CA, you mentioned the suspicions that run East-West, and I can pin point a lot of where those start. Bernard Lewis' book What Went Wrong is a great read for why the Middle East is so suspicious of and angry towards the West. The reasons why the West is suspicous of the East lie in Catholicism of the Middle Ages, along with how close the Muslims came to conquering Europe. Had they been locked out of France by defenses in the Pyrranese, and been repelled at the Siege of Vienna, they would have overrun the area. This was used as a boogy man scare scare tactic by many priests and kings in that age. As for this war, the tactics used by the French Army in the waning days of the French-Algerian War were very successful, even if they lost the war because of politics. Another interesting book to read is Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne.

Nice post - Scott, nv. I really like the tone of this blog tonigh!

Scott - The democrats have been PREACHING diplomacy from day one!! I want to be kind, but how can you state, "hopefully those opposed to the war will support the administration’s effort at diplomacy with Iran" is just WRONG!! I'm sorry Scott, but you are preaching to the choir and one that has been singing for years. Also, many of your post are in direct conflict with your statement. I feel you are making it now because the Administration has FINALLY awoke and is "attempting" to listen to what they have been told for YEARS!! It is the RIGHT that you must worry about Scott, as it has been the RIGHT who has ridiculed those who have stated diplomacy is a crucial aspect for peace and a stable Iraq. I don't want to argue Scott, but Bush, his Administration and those on the right have ridiculed ANYONE, including me, who have stated diplomacy with Iran is necessary. Come on Scott...

Independent - KUDOS!!

MY God - rereading my 5:20 post: should have been the "12 years between them". How could I have forgotten the 4 memorable years of Papa Bush?

It is a dangerous game to compare the Presidency of one with the Presidency of another. Such a game is used to either defend the one in office rather than evaluate the same on their own merit, or used to defend the past-Presidency of another without evaluating the same on their own merit. It makes for argument rather than resolution, agreement or agreement to disagree. Suffice it to say all Presidents have had their flaws. All future Presdients will have theirs. It makes little sense to try to declare which had the greater number of flaws, and it matters not if one inherits some bad policies or decisions made by previous Presidents. If good, they will do what they can to make the corrections that are warranted and necessary, and will know their history so as not to repeat the same errors as past Presidents.

Now CA - don't you go spoilin' our fun! Larry wanted a little chat and we gave him one. I think he'll get back to us and we'll go on. You're correct of course about truly comparing presidents. However, evaluating a president against his own claims is very valid. So - clearing up the Carter misunderstanding was fair game to me. Do you agree?

C A - You made me realize this a long time ago; however, I am glad that I can have a dialogue with Larry that is not filled with hate and name calling. You are correct, as I am MORE than sick and tired of hearing "but Clinton, Clinton, Clinton" as a means to defend Bush. However, I feel good that Larry and I can discuss issues, which I sincerely hope will open our dialogue to being productive rather than insulting. I also credit you and Independent with that!!

As I was making my dinner, which amounted to me sticking a bowl of chili in the microwave oven, one thing occurred to me that I have never seen really discussed anywhere. I've argued this with a former marine who basically thinks we should bomb Iraq into the ground and who cares if a few 'wogs' die in the process. (I am using that term specifically to indicate his feelings about Muslims not mine!). Our military is not set up for small scale operations. In a sense, I hate to use it this way, but it's kind of like the Death Star. It's massive, big, bloated, and designed to do one thing- take out other big, massive and bloated militaries. It really is vulnerable to small group tactics. Durring the Middle Ages, the Crusaders found themselves at a distinct disadvantage against the Muslims for a number of reasons. One of them was their reliance upon light weight armor and mounted archers. Where the Crusaders would march in and charge, the Muslims would use hit and run tactics. Now, I will warn you, I AM not comparing our military rational in Iraq to that of the Crusaders, nor am I comparing the terrorists to Saladin. What I am comparing is military tactics. Part of why the Irish took to the guerilla tactics is, in part, because that was a very Celtic way of fighting. Our military doesn't need heavy bombers to fight modern wars, but small scale munitions and gattling guns on our planes. In Algeria, the tide of war turned militarily when the French sent in a former Maquisard to fight the Armee de Liberation National. He used tactics that mixed occupation (by placing large groups of soldiers in the population centers) and guerilla tactics such as hit and fade runs on supply depots and ALN entrenchments. It was painstaking work, but it would have won the day had the Fourth Republic not collapsed and the French Government bowed to their own people to grant Algeria its freedom. The big problem with our military is not the men and women who serve in it, but the mentality behind it. The military is still stuck in the Cold War, along with this current administration.

CA, you are right that we should not compare presidents. In a sense, we always know now what we didn't know then. Bill Clinton will probably go to his grave regretting that he did not get bin Laden. Presidents can only do what they can within the law (normally), and can only do so much. He tried, but was unsuccessful due to a number of already stated reasons. I know that Carter regrets how he handled the Iran Hostage Crisis. What sticks in my craw is that Bush will never regret what he has done. He seems incapable of understanding that he did something wrong.

Independent - "How could I have forgotten the 4 memorable years of Papa Bush?" you state; it's because you have been working tirelessly at diplomacy on this blog since last night. Also, I am stubborn so your work was no easy feat!! KUDOS friend!! As I think I would have forgotten "Papa Bush" if I was handling the "Blog Crisis", which began yesterday and ended today, in large part because of you!! Thank you again!!

BREAKING NEWS-- "A U.S. CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashes in Afghanistan, killing seven people, NATO officials tell CNN, adding a rescue team was ambushed." This thread has really been healing today and with this horrible news, I hope we can all (Larry and Scott too) come together and take a moment to pray for those killed in this horrible crash. May they rest in peace.

Ah Bridgette - at last a hole in your education (smile). Yes, indeedy, our "Military Industrial Complex" is a behemoth as you say. However, there exists, and I am very proud of them, teams of troops who are unsurpassed in covert operations. (CA - here is your cue to give us the real scoop). I hate that we need them but, times being what they are, I am glad that we have them. My major contention about the way we are handling Iraq and the, so called, GWOT, is that we aren't shutting our mouths and deploying our Seals,etc. Too much talk and not enough (effective) action in one sense. As CA mentioned in a posting a few months back: (I was so impressed that I copied it and saved it)"And while you do all this you play the perfect diplomatic game with any nation, friend or foe, willing to sit down and talk and listen to your rhetoric as to how you are their good friend while you remove those in their country or under their care who are your enemy. You help other nations that are friendly and that do not harbour terrorists. We decrease our reputation as being a big bully that sends its military anywhere we wish at any time, and increase our reputation as a world power that will leave all other countries alone, but screw with us, house terrorists, and we will be in and out of your country faster than you can say Bin Laden leaving behind the death and destruction of our enemies they never believed would have been possible."

PS: I spent my early twenties in the Monterrey Bay area. That is where the Naval Post Graduate School is. Got to know lots of those guys. Got to know some seals although the real "seal" action is further south in california. Got to tell you, those guys are something else. I know about other covert teams in the other branches of the military but the seals are the only ones with which I have had, er, direct contact.

Inde, I know I'm not perfect, but I do know about the Seals and the other covert ops guys. What I'm thinking is that we need to rethink the regular military too. Make them more moble and less gargantuan. I will freely admit that I don't know enough about all the different parts of our military, and some of this may be in place. I tend to think of our covert ops guys as going in and taking out a target then leaving. What I think we need are highly moble units with smaller weapons and the ability to take down smaller opponents. Of course, I'm not fully sure I'm getting what's in my brain out onto the screen right. I think what I'm looking for is a happy medium between the small covert warriors going in and getting out and the more robust, take down an army army. I know we've got stuff that tries to do that in the military already, but I'm not sure that it's very effective. I hope that clarifies what I'm thinking. BTW, I'm currently living not far from FLETC, one of the two Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in the country, so I understand what you mean by getting to know the people there. On a serious note, I have lived here since '92. I knew a number of men who died in Oklahoma City, so sometimes living near these places can be heart breaking too.

Oh - one last clarification before you jump all over me. I realize that "cover" and "guerilla" aren't the same thing. In fact, the training specialization called "urban warfare" is what is closest in our current military speak. We are good at that as well. Keep in mind, however, that the military fights political wars. The "politics" of Iraq called for by our illustrious leader demanded the show in force. Our Military leaders tried to tell him it wouldn't work but look how much good that did. (Note - you guys can relax a little. I know I've been chatting up a storm today but I had the time. Won't have it much from now on so you'll be spared all my diatribes!)

Pam, I was very upset to hear about the helicopter going down. This was a tactic used durring the Russian war with Afghanistan too.

Inde, what CA said was right. Heck, it was what Bill Clinton was doing. Terry Pratchett once said that the hardest thing to do in politics is nothing. Clinton did a lot of creative nothing. He left Brazil, Mexico, and most of Latin America pretty much alone. He kept an eye on Iraq, and tried to help in the Palestine, but he didn't go after Iran. He kept preasure on Afghanistan. Freind or foe, he was pretty even handed. Look what happened, though. Iran moved steadily towards a more true form of democracy. Syria began to slowly move away from full totalitarianism. Brazil and Venezuela were relatively stable. Mexico had its first change of political power in ninety years, and the first that didn't come with blood shed. Cuba loosened up a bit. Bin Laden's mentor was caught and jailed for the first Trade Center attack. The bombers of the Cole were brought to justice. It was a true light touch. The world was slowly moving out of the Cold War and into an era of relative calm. It's part of why I really want to see Bill Richardson as President because I've seen the kind of diplomacy he's capable of. If not President, then Vice President or Secretary of State. The man has a deep respect for the people of the world. Incidentally, Clinton was the first President I ever voted for. I remember how most people thought that Paul Tsongas was going to be the Democrat to go against Bush. He was in the lead, he had the goods, and he was strong. Then WHAM, Bill Clinton came out of left field. So, I'm not counting on Obama, H. Clinton or Edwards right now.

Bridgette - too cool. Our posts addressing the same topic hit at the same time!! 7:36. What a hoot.

yep, Inde, it's rather funny really. And you make a very good point. As I said, I don't know enough about modern warfare. I know the difference between a Teutonic Knight and a Knights Hospitaller, heck even a mauser rifle and a javelin. Thank you for the information though. :)

I don't know if this is going to go through, but what the heck. This isn't spam. "I'm the very model of a modern major general, I know information animal, vegitalbe and mineral. . .I can tell at sight a mauser rifle from a javelin." I was making fun of myself with my last comment. I do know more about ancient warfare than modern, so any help is always welcome Inde. Thanks again.

Someone stop Bridgette before she Gilbert & Sullivan's again! ;)

Bill - You sir are 100% correct!! When Cindy Sheehan first met with George W. Bush, it was with a group of other grieving parents and before she realized the lies of this war. She begged and pleaded and George W. Bush; however her pleas fell on deaf ears. President Clinton (sorry C A) when being interviewed by Larry King was asked if Bush should agree to a meeting with Cindy Sheehan. President Clinton said yes and went on to explain his answer in a manner that gave me chills. While he was president, a father lost his son in Bosnia. He demanded to meet with President Clinton, as he was furious with him and blamed him for his son's death. President Clinton stated, "I sent his son to battle and his son died. I feel this man had the right to say whatever he wanted to me and he did. He was filled with anger; however, I understood his anger and also felt it was my duty to meet with the father of a young man whom I sent into battle". What a CLASS ACT!! Just typing this has again given me chills. George W. Bush should have done exactly what President Clinton did, for the same reasons and it would have been the right thing to do. President Clinton also stated he would have met with as many parents as requested and did NOT feel his meeting with this “one father” would have caused an "unreasonable precedent." However, President Clinton also stated if it did, he would have met with any parent who requested a meeting, President Clinton, you sir are a man of class - PERIOD!!

Independent: Yes, they do exist, and yes, they can play the terrorist game better than the terrorists. And no, they are not the Seals or Rangers or Green Berets, but yes they are very stealth and deadly. Unleash them and those who mean the US harm or have volunteered to be a human bomb or to place charges in vehicles will think they are living in hell here on earth. They are more hungry than the terrorists, can be even more cruel, and certainly are better trained and equipped. But, you would have to look the other way and shelve the western morality for a period of time. And if you could do this the end result would be astonishing. And no leader (whether a terrorist leader or from a legitimate government) here on this earth would (forgive my French) f--- with us. If you want to end terrorism or the serious threat of terrorism, unleash these people while our diplomats sit, talk and sip tea with the leaders of all countries while these teams (numbering in members from 1 to 12) slit the throats of those leaders of our chosing, the throats of their fanatical war-mongering advisors or religious leader's, and place a silent bullet from a safe distance between the eyes of any person volunteering to commit a terrorist act. Afterwards, act shocked that anyone could do such a thing and promise these countries you will help to hunt the perpetrators down while at the same time do a better job of securing your own borders. Just don't look too closely for the perps somewhere in the Rockies or in mid-state Alabama where you may find a small band of brothers taking a break and doing some serious fishing. That is how you fight terrorism. Not by invading countries at will because you can.

CA - I know and remember from the dark days when this was standard practice. I agree that this is the only effective way to deal with the terrorists. Of course, the real battle would be to keep control over the situation. I've complained about the "show of force" approach but I have to wonder if I really want the Supremely Selected President to actually become accustomed to using this power. I would trust almost anyone else (except for VP Vader) but not this guy. However, I do think that, in the end, it will come to that as our only alternative.

Wow, Todd, someone got the reference! Most people go. . .'huh?' when I quote a bit of Gilbert and Sulivan. On the other hand, I loved the Animaniacs version of that song. C A, thank you for letting me know. I think what I'm looking to try and explain is something more mobile than we've got, but not along the lines of what you've pointed out. However, I would agree that those methods are how you take out terrorists. The British government occupied Ireland as a whole from around 1250 to 1922. From 1802ish to 1922, any attempt to push Catholic rights was supressed, sometimes crushingly. Durring the 1980's, the Thatcher government again did a lot of crushing, random incarceration, and brutality. All these did was fuel the Nationalist movements. Terrorism always responds to crushing force by multiplying. Once the force was removed in Northern Ireland when Blair took office, the IRA suddenly started to see its power dwindle. It finally had to take the offer given to it in 1967 by the British government. Terrorism has to be cut out by a delicate blade rather than crushed with a hammer. Diplomatically, we preasure governments in the world to build up their economies. The more employed a society is, the less poverty there is, the less terrorism there is. It is not a coincidence that this nation's only real terrorist group, the KKK, was born in the South's ruined economy durring Reconstruction, and died in the the South's growing economy of the 1970's. It took the FBI hunting down the worst of them to help break the organization. However, it is not surprising that this group holds on to the edges where people are poor, jobs are few, and dirt is about the only thing for dinner. Thus, it isn't surprising that the seat of terrorism in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, a nation with the lowest employment rate of any rich nation in the world. Both F.D. Roosevelt and L.B. Johnson understood this principle. If you can employ people, or at least sustain them, you can keep them from the radicals. A little bit of Socialism prevented a whole lot of Communism in both this nation and in Europe. I know I tend to recomend a lot of books by this author. I recomend Night Watch by Terry Pratchett. It goes into some of this, and helped me to see some of what goes on in the world regarding terrorism, charity and poverty.

C A - Sound words in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt's "walk softly and carry a big stick" doctrine. Talk always, kill when you MUST and kill with purposeful precision. If Bush were a real outdoorsman, then maybe he would see the wisdom in the approach you and, indeed, prudence advocates in a world with thermonuclear and biological weapons. But first, we have to tend to the fires here at home. Before they burn the world.

Todd: I agree.

Al Gore reduced my hopes. He cannot be president. He is a good man but his talents do not include leading with strength. Simple. He is intelligent. He should be listened to - but I watched him dilute, not to say dissolve, the urgency present in the withdrawal of Cindy Sheehan. Gore showed no respect either for the passion she brought, as well as the truthfulness of every statement she has made since the beginning of Crawford TX confrontation. I watched Gore distance himself from Cindy Sheehan even as she was the one who validated his observations most succinctly and most eloquently and, also, in the most timely manner. Cindy Sheehan is a woman who does not dress up and do her hair. She is haggard from pain and struggle. She is difficult to watch. Mr. Gore, honor Cindy Sheehan and maybe I'll reconsider my vote. This is a country which not only eschews Reason, but Compassion and the validity of human emotions. What is left? The physicality of war.

Todd: Correct, but I was thinking more in terms of Sheriff Pusser (Walking Tall). Walk softly and carry a big baseball bat. The key however is covert, infiltration and undercover. You don't walk down streets that contain terrorists who hide among the general population or across open fields for all to see where you came from and where you are going. And you don't go in wearing Army issued clothing, helmets with night vision scopes on the top that stick above low built walls, comouflage suits that are not truly comouflaged, wearing heavy army boots you can hear stomping a mile away, carrying 50 lb. packs on your back and expect to get the surprise and first bead you need on your enemy. You blend in with the terrain, the environment and if possible the general populace and strike when least expected. And you use people with an unusual amount of patience for they will wait and wait and wait minus any comforts and without flinching an eyelid until the time is right.

C A. I don't know how much the Franco-Algerian War has been taught to any of us. I only learned about it because one of my professors assigned a book about it. Towards the end of the war, the French assigned a general to fight the ALN. Here is how he operated. He built up support among various tribes and had their people act as scouts to gather intelligence. They kept tight control of all the borders of Algeria, both friendly and hostile, to stem the flow of arms into the country. He stationed the bulk of his troops in the cities where he also used friendly people to infiltrate the local networks so he could smash them. Most of the ALN fighters were driven out into the countryside where they could be easily fought. He then had small bands of soldiers, helicoptors and small, slow biplanes read for the word that his scouts had found an ALN encampment. Once the word was given, his troops were on their way and would land in a circle around the ALN camp. The biplanes would then straif and bomb the area using low yield explosives. By the time the political war was lost, the ALN had gone from an estimated ten thousand troops to a scant one or two hundred that were still on the loose. I do not know how well this would work in Iraq, but what it proves is that you can break up networks like this. We just need to have had people setting up these kinds of networks in Iraq from day one. We also need to humiliate Sadr. Killing him would make him a martyr, but, if humiliated, he would be neutralized.

C A, agreed. The best offense, like the best defense, is invisible. That is why if aliens were here (and interested in anything more than imposing a quarantine on the dangerous space monkeys here), we would be SO screwed. If they have the technology to get here, then their technological processes are well on the way to being indistinguishable from natural process. How does your enemy defeat you when they don't know you are there? All properly run warfare should ideally be cold. Should we survive ourselves (doubtful), that is a lesson we had damn well better learn as a species before we go out amongst the stars. We are in the cradle. Life elsewhere is probably already running full steam. We would stand no chance entering that situation with a confrontational stance. Think the last Zulu nation versus the modern U.S. Air Force - spear and shield versus stealth and particle weapons. It is far better to be like the old white haired guy in the 70's kung fu movie that looks like he is about to fall over. Until he beats down EVERYONE with his hat or some other innocuous object. Sometimes he dispenses his wisdom to the hero and then vanishes. Either way, the old dude wins. Why? Because as you so adroitly pointed out, he is patient and skilled in execution.

Na Bridgette: There are large differences between the Franco-Algerian War and the conflcit / occupation in Iraq. Too many to discuss at length here. Your idea of turning one group against the other so that they can destroy one another is fair thinking, but as you said, it would have had to taken place before our invasion of Iraq and shortly after having taken out just Saddam. As far as Sadr please permit me to disagree. If we fought terrorism like we should we need not worry about martyrs. Either put a bullet in his head or while we woah and dine him put a bullet in the heads of his followers. Either way, just eliminate the source or the tools used by the source. Forget the worries about martyrs. No more games. You screw with us, you are dead meat. And if your replacement screws with us he/she are dead meat, and so on. Enough said.

C A, I know that there are vast differences, though there are many lessons to be learned from the Franco-Algerian War that could have been applied to this conflict. That is, if anyone in this administration actually knew history. Iraq is still a very tribal country, and it is still a culture that puts a lot of emphasis upon sacrifice for one's faith. Sadr's father is a martyr in the eyes of the Shi'a in Baghdad; that is why humiliation is better than death. Or worse, let Sharia take him out. You find a way to frame him for breaking Islamic law and let local legal beliefs take him out. The British once thought the same thing about Seamus O Conghaile (James O'Connell) and the rest of the leadership of the Irish Volunteers. They propped O Conghaile up in a chair after nursing his wounds and shot him. They believed that killing these men would prevent any further rebellion. Instead, they created martyrs. Sadr is too popular to be killed outright. No one would believe Iran or Syria killed him, and they would believe no matter the evidence to the contrary that the US and/or the Sunni murdered him. If we can humiliate him somehow, or get Sharia to execute him, then we neutralize him. Meanwhile, you slowly take out his army; however, if he is humiliated, most of his army would turn from him and disperse so long as any other radical Islamists do not rise to take his place. In Ireland, the executions that did take place only enflamed the Irish. Soon after, the Irish Republican Army headed by deValera, Collins and Marckevichs formed. They went on a campaign that ultimately ended with the bulk of Ireland free. Do not underestimate one popular, charismatic man's death on a population that seeks conflict.

Sorry Bridgette: In my scenario to fight terrorism Sadr is a dead man. And if his death encourages others to take up his cause, as long as it remains a harmful terroristic cause, they are dead also. Remember that Sadr was nothing, a joke, not having half the influecne he does now before this conflict errupted in Iraq. And who is to say anyone would know what really happen to him. What if he were to just disappear off the face of the earth. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves Bridgette. Before the invasion Sadr was nothing. So the error of invading Iraq created Sadr and his following. In our type of war on terror we would never have invaded Iraq, so this whole discussion is mote.

C A, before the Easter Rebellion, O'Connelly was nothing also. He was the least popular of the leaders of the Irish Volunteers. An ardent Communist, he was ridiculed by the other leaders. The people in the IV were not fond of him. Yet, after the Easter Rebellion, he was a martyr. Songs were sung about his bravery. He was immortallized in a poem by Yeats. What someone was before does not mean that their death will not be powerful. The deaths of that handful of people turned the small, struggling Republican movement in Ireland into a monster. It gained strong support for the IRA not only in Ireland, but Britain, the US, and Australia. Money flowed in, arms flowed in. The IRA became unstoppable. You see, it won't be just one person who springs up to take Sadr's place, but a thousand. His death will not harm the terrorists cause, but galvanize it. His humiliation however, will destroy his group faster than a thousand bullets.

It is legitimate that uncovering confirmed info on this topic can be time consuming.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):