Ghost of BiB

Read the documents I linked. You're a smart guy, you can read behind the lines as to the implications. No one is saying that attacking them will prevent attacks. Part of the strategy is to deny them safe haven to organize and build up regional partnerships. To answer an earlier question, yes, remaining in the M/E makes it much harder on them. Sorta-kinda why we're there. Eventually, things are going to fizzle in Iraq for AQ, and AQ will move into the the Horn of Africa as a base. However, THIS time we are actively engaged in cutting off that alternative. Like I said, read - and think it through. There are going to be plenty more attacks outside the M/E. Count on several ala 90's style in the Horn and East Africa. Count on more in Europe and Asia. But at the same time, figure in the factor of scale. Don't think for a second that there is some "mandate" for AQ not to attack the US right now. For one thing, what sense would that make? The visible allied military support to the US is pretty small in proportion to what we ourselves provide to the effort. Don't think either that Spain has quit being an ally just because they withdrew a few troops. That is a tip to the iceberg as to what this "coalition" is all about. Things like guys in body armor look good on the news, and it's a propoganda victory to see them board an airplane to leave. But it's not that important. Everyone in Europe knows that they are not going to be safe as long as the present a perceived threat to the "great plan". Those with some more balls, like Great Britain, Italy and Poland have to watch their back a lot harder. Folks like France have a long history of playing both sides, and are safer. As crappy as it sounds, just because someone writes a book, it doesn't make them automatically right (unless, around here your name is Darwin...). This guy's opinions are probably shared by many other academics and ex-officials, but are also probably not shared by a large majority of working operators that most likely have access to better information than he does. Too bad many of them don't have time to write books. His basic precepts may have had merit in the 90's, but don't reflect the realities of today. Sorry, I'm not saying you are agreeing with him, but still, they don't. Vacating the M/E now would be a strategic, political, psychological, informational, tactical and ultimately an economic disaster. Once again, as I have screamed from the rooftop many a time, there is a big picture and most people tend to focus on a few pixels, for whatever their own reasons.

I think it's really cool that probably 75% of America wouldn't have given this conversation the time of day before it hit their wallet. Now, folks are getting concerned.

Is that commercial grade or weapons grade retatta?

Steal CTM's car. But only after he's filled up. Then I can park mine.

Pakistanis crossing into Texas would probably get my attention regardless. You bring up another point here, having adequate resources at the right place at the right time. The actuality is that what you describe does go on. There are often literally so many pieces and bits of information out there, and descriptions so vague that you are sometimes back to profiling everybody, and at several places at once.

No. They were attacked because they were involved in the "war". Not to purposely separate them from the coalition, and there is a distinction. The election effects were a by-product of that, not a strategy. Unexpected windfall to AQ. But, they learned from that.

I'd be happy to buy any of them dinner.

Same with any sport. I'm a NASCAR fan, and I always love when they interview crew chief/driver after the motor turns itself into shrapnel on lap 127. "Well, the Mr. Peanut Alpo Defense Department Homewrecker's Anonymous Dodge was runnin' real good, we had a really fast car and thought we could get back to the front for a real good finish..." If you had a REALLY GOOD CAR IT WOULDN'T HAVE BLOWN UP!!!

No, it's not accurate, in terms of the total story. But, you'll just have to trust me on this one. I know that's hard to do in "provide a link central", but think about it. For the most part, they are current. The actual plans based upon the strategies may have some differences, but it takes a long time to create and vet a policy document through everyone it needs to go through. When you read them, at first blush it sounds like a lot of rhetoric, but these are actually very, very carefully wordsmithed to put a certain meaning across. Actual operational documents are much more specific and are written as "evolving" plans, using an adaptive more than a deliberate process. Parts are almost always under an update or a re-write and are dated well into 2005. The National Military Strategy for the War on Terror is currently classified, for example, but a non-classified version should be released shortly. By contrast, the former administration was operating in 2000 off strategic documents published around 93-95. That's not a Clinton "slam", it's just how things work. A strategy, sort of by definition is a long term thing. If everyone in government is going to base what they do on a particular strategy, you can't change it on a whim. That's why that particular type of document is written in what might seem on the surface like vague terms. As an example, if the National Policy is to do A-B-C, the Defense Department has to organize and structure itself to meet those goals. That doesn't happen in a week.

Pressure gradient.

I guess they want people to take it seriously. And, whatever is left a week from now or so goes right through Buffalo, unless the projected track changes a lot. Y'all make sure you give it the finger when it comes by.

425 per ounce? You got robbed. Gotta go weapons grade. Get at least 832.

I wonder what started it? Something about backing up? Parking rage? I love states with good carry laws.

National Strategy - Terror National Security Strategy National Strategy to Combat WMD National Strategy for Homeland Security National Military Strategy Issue Brief to Congress IFPA Report-National Security Strategy and Policy And, obviously anything with any real meat to it can not be posted here, but they reflect the basic precepts of the strategies. This is absolutely inacurate.

This is going to mess up natural gas futures too, if there's any impact to Henry Hub.

Let's see here...about 10 middle/east-western asian types per day... 3 examples of non over the last 10 years or so... I'll go with the odds and profile.

Maybe if they hired from girls gone wild...

Don't you?

I went through Iniki in Hawaii, and also when they evacuated Savannah. I understand. Everyone there has my prayers and remember, it's not too late for the miracles.

They must be modelling after the LAPD playbook.

Prior post

There are many who would vehemently disagree with that. The one's who don't know any better I can understand, but those who are elected officials who are riding that horse for political capital are the ones who bother me. I almost dread what is going to happen over the next two major elections. They will back themselves into a policy corner from which they can't get out of and things will probably get pretty ugly. The current administration may screw up in the execution, but the strategy is sound. I don't think that unless something drastic happens, a democratic ticket, or a moderate republican one is going to go far without a major anti-war platform (in so many words). A lot of great meaningless rhetoric and vague plans will be spoken, but the political strategy will be to withdraw and put our heads in the sand in favor of "diplomatic solutions" and increased homeland security spending.

Barring a miracle, this one is going to be pretty ugly.

Probably Arlington, VA with a slim possibility of Poland. Might be hard to find a Bills bar in Warsaw.

Fifth hour?