Oh my god, it is like crazy that you wrote this today! I just watched Midnight Cowboy last night. He was so damn hot 36 years ago. What happened?

I think he has a valid point, we need a more comprehensive immigration plan. Also I think we should exercise more severity on those who would enter our country illegally.

Toby,

Time, as they say, wounds all heels.

Another attack will happen, we have become complacent. When the next attack happens our response will be the same. Outrage followed by griefn counselors, interfaith prayer meetings and empty calls foe justice.

If we're worried about another attack--and of course there will be one, at some point--one wonders why we are expending life and money over in Iraq, where nobody attacked us, instead of bringing our soldiers back to inspect container ships, protect airports and guard borders.

I understand that this somehow makes sense to the Right, but I've never followed the logic myself.

Michael,

I often wonder if people on the left chop the top off of weeds instead of pulling them up by the roots. As you say, I've never followed the logic myself.

Eric:

Fighting them over there doesn't keep them from coming over here. Cases in point: Madrid and London.

September 11 took how many guys--19 or 20? It's not logical to suggest that if al Quaeda wanted to mount another attack that they couldn't spare 20 guys from causing trouble elsewhere to get the job done. They just haven't decided to do so yet.

Also: I'm not clear on how you analogy makes sense. Are you suggesting that global terrorism has its roots in Iraq? It seems to me that fighting terrorists in Iraq is more like expending all your energy trimming back the tendrils of crabgrass that stray onto the driveway while, behind you, crabgrass is free to take over your lawn.

Michael, those lead paint chips must be some kind of delicious!

Redneck, it would be more convincing if you would explain how my reasoning's wrong, rather than making with the half-witticism.

Are you telling me that the fighting in Iraq literally prevents terrorist attacks from happening here? How?

Michael, the Iraq war is just one front in the war on terrorism (or Islamism, more specifically). We're dealing with "root causes".

Yes, global Islamist terrorism has it's root in the core nations of the Muslim world, of which Iraq is one huge historical pivot. Iraq is not the whole war, but if one is trying to uproot the systems that give rise to Islamist terror then Iraq had to be on the list. Iran as well. The Saudis, Egypt and Pakistan too. Not each one has to be dealt with the same way, but each one has to be dealt with. It just so happens that Iraq was a nation we were already at war with that was clearly not cooperating with the terms of ceasefire. After Sept 11th, that was completely unacceptable. Therefore, to the top of the military action list they go. Yes, there were additional reasons: Humanitarian reasons, WMD (which didn't turn out the way anyone at all expected), etc. But the open defiance of a nation we were already at war with, that just so happens to be a nation bordering three other key supporters of global terrorism, and is right in the heart of the entire Muslim world...? Damn right Iraq came next after Afghanistan.

Maybe if the last 5 years hadn't been spent with so much American strength being wasted arguing with ourselves and with our own supposed allies beyond any point of reason or self-interest the process would be further along.

Michael,

It would behoove you to listen to what the terrorists themselves are saying.

Time and time again, in proclamation after proclamation, they are telling their supporters that the lynchpin of their strategy is now Iraq. They are exhorting all who will answer the call, to go to Iraq and support that struggle against the democratic government in Iraq, and the coalition forces.

Iraq wasn't it before September 11th, it wasn't before we invaded, but now it is.

Because Al Qaeda knows that if they break the will of the US people in the fight for Iraq, there is no nation left who would dare stand in their way again.

There are millions in the Muslim world on the proverbial fence in the bigger strategic battle for hearts and minds. And if Al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, millions upon willions will fall in behind them. Everyone likes a winner. And the US leaving Iraq = Al Qaeda wins. They would be emboldened beyond all reconciling.

Don't take the word of western conservatives on the matter. For chrissakes, listen to the bad guys. They're quite clear on this particular point.

The coalition went in to Iraq thinking, somewhat naively, that all we needed to do was defeat the Iraqi military; depose Saddam; utilize the existing political, economic and governmental frameworks to install a temporary government; hold elections and all would be fine.

It didn't work out like that. Through a combination of naivete, failed planning and bad decisions, Iraq went to hell in a handbasket, and quite unexpectedly became the main front in the war against Islamic fascism.

There's a bigger picture here. Why do some refuse to see it.

For chrissakes, Eric writes, listen to the bad guys. They're quite clear on this particular point.

Why should we listen to the bad guys on this point when we don't listen to them on other points? Why would al Quaeda broadcast its intentions that way?

Deception is a part of warfare:

"In the months leading up to the invasion, the Allies conducted a deception operation, Operation Bodyguard, designed to persuade the Germans that other points would be threatened as well as northern France (such as the Balkans and the south of France). Then, in the weeks leading up to the invasion, in order to persuade the Germans that the main invasion would really be coming to the Pas de Calais, as well as to lead them to expect an invasion of Norway, the Allies prepared a massive deception plan, called Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude North would lead the Axis to expect an attack on Norway; the much more vital Operation Fortitude South was designed to lead the Germans to expect the main invasion at the Pas de Calais, and to hold back forces to guard against this threat rather than rushing them to Normandy."

Sorry; the close-link tag got away from me there.

Michael,

Respect for your positions would probably be bolstered if it was clear you knew who you were responding to.

In any event, it's my belief that most states in the middle east sponsor terrorism of one kind or another. Saddam Hussein, while not implicated in the 9/11 attacks, certainly provided material support to Al Qeda and the Taliban. At the time, he was also in violation of the 1991 ceasefire agreement and had successfully undermined the sanctions regime.

As far as more attacks are concerned, Al Qeda would have certainly mounted them if it was able. It's not, primarily because its leaders are concentrating on their own survival, and those kind of attacks are almost impossible to mount without being able to move money around.

Incidentally, Al Qeda would broadcast its intentions because it's not a military organization. It's a political organization. Bin Laden was quite open from about 1992 about what he intended - we just didn't listen.

Sorry about the misattributed quote, Eric.