Replies

#5 is still open- because the specific government that supported terrorist has been overthrown, but we need to ensure that the new government doesn’t fall into the same pattern.

We also have the consequence (positive) that we have been able to define and control the battlefield, and draw jihadists to a battlefield we defined under our terms versus running around all over the world.

#5 is still open- because the specific government that supported terrorist has been overthrown, but we need to ensure that the new government doesn’t fall into the same pattern.

Oh, OK. But, since we accomplised 7 out of 8 of your points for going in in the first place, wouldn't it be wise, after we did all the heavy work, to allow the Iraqi's to ensure this for themselves? How many years has it been now since we accomplished 7 out of your 8 points?

We also have the consequence (positive) that we have been able to define and control the battlefield, and draw jihadists to a battlefield we defined under our terms versus running around all over the world.

We haven't even dented their birth rate. You're only fooling yourself here. There are over 1,000,000,000 Muslims.

Let's assume that we've killed 100,000 jihadis in Afghanistan/Iraq.

100,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.0001 = 1/100^th of 1% of worldwide Muslim population.

Obviously, we need to lure many more to the Iraq "jihadi killing fields" (since that is what you think they are) and what justifies our war in Iraq. How about if we posit killing a million jihadis in Iraq?

1,000,000/1,000,000,000 = 0.001 = 1/10^th of 1% of worldwide Muslim population.

Due to their barbaric religion and culture, they have a large demographic of young combat-aged surplus males. The corrupt Muslim ruling classes also like to have mistresses, temporary "marriages", or even outright harem arrangements. This is why sodomy is both despised and prevalent. Sheer lack of women. So to get their virgins, off on jihad. Most people have no idea just how perverse and strange the ideas of any group of a billion people can be. This is what Ron Paul means when he refers to the Reagan's description of "the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics". It's like using your own teenagers in a suicidal charge to clear a mine field for your troops (something they did do on both sides during the Iran/Iraq war).

Anyway, our present method of jihadi extinction isn't mathematically sound and the deterrent effect seems quite limited in their very closed societies.

I think the whole Iraq-as-killing-fields-for-jihadis argument is numerically flawed, however many times it is repeated as a mantra. Unless you can find a way to kill at least 10 million jihadis, you haven't really made a dent in the birthrate. You should also keep in mind that it is the most Westernized and privileged Muslim youths who jihad against us. Particularly the jihadis in Britain and those who attacked us on 9/11.

I suppose this is a crudely phrased argument but this is probably the only to measure it. I have no doubt that the Pentagon and the State Department think in exactly these terms. They're a rather cold-blooded bunch if you ever read their declassified materials.