According to a matter-of-fact Kos, Italy "is quiting Iraq".
(Is that what he meant? Well, *not quite*. In Mr. Moulitsas' defense, my blogging software's spell check lets "quiting" sail right by, but maybe a quick manual scan of the 55-word composition would've averted this uncomely citation from the spelling police.)
Anyway, on to the content, which is far more rebukable.
Kos is referring to an ABC News story about Italy's tentative plans to withdraw 10% of its troops (300 of its original commitment of 3,000) in September, subject to security conditions at that time.
Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli characterized the proposed partial military withdrawal as a matter on which to begin discussion, and noted it would commence "perhaps by September." Calderoli went on to explain that the move would be part of an effort to allocate more of its finite resources to Italy's own homeland security initiatives.
That's quitting Iraq?
Kos pauses to ponder:
How much safer would the United States be if we had spent $200 billion+
to secure our ports and border, instead of creating new terrorists in
Iraq?
For guidance, he looks to Arianna Huffington, who makes a rather bizarre claim:
No one can seriously argue that if the U.S. and Britain had spent the
last 46 months — and over $200 billion — focusing on Al Qaeda rather
than Iraq these attacks would not have happened. But we can say without a doubt that spending that time and money in Iraq did not prevent them.
Well, I guess that's hard to argue with. Indeed, the time and money spent in Iraq did not prevent these attacks, which did in fact take place.
Similarly, no one can seriously argue that if I hadn't spent 10 minutes — and over $7 — eating that delicious meatball hero for dinner on Tuesday, these attacks would not have happened. But we can say without a doubt that spending that time and money at the pizzeria did not prevent them.
Article comments
1 - D L Ennis
The first sensible post I’ve seen on this subject in a long time, if not ever..
Thanks!
D L
2 - sal m
This same lack of logic, which is caused by "Anti-Bush Administration-itis," was on display the other night during one of the ABC networks' news magazines.
Richard Clarke - the author of a now-discredited anti-Bush/9/11 book, a former member of the Clinton Administration and now an ABC "analyst" - took the occasion of the London terrorist attacks to take a swipe at the Bush Administration.
Mr. Clarke basically said that this attack shows us that we are still a target...Gee what insight! And that the president should spend 10% less on the military in Iraq and use it towards railway security here in the U.S. Huh?
Clarke went on to say that this attack happened in London because there is a large group of al-Quaida sympathizers in London, and that because there are so many of them, it's easier for them to blend in. He went on to say that this attack would be hard to plan in the U.S. because the F.B.I. would be aware of those in the country capable of pulling off such an attack. This is tortured logic...
The attack DIDN'T happen here because the administration has done a great job of fighting the terrorists in Iraq and not on our soil. Problems with fighting the war should not be confused with keeping terrorists on the run and away from us.
Logic suffers when people look to blame the U.S. and our government for terrorist attacks that happen anywhere else in the world.
3 - WTF
Everyone's "keen" insight was blogged by events in Iraq and further dampened by the insane insight provided on sites like this.
The start of the problem, may have been President Wilson. But the Soviets sure had helped the situation with guns and butter programs in the region.
One thing pols never talk about it isolation. Let's isolate the problem, pull out, sanction, send everyone back to their country of origin....
Oh shit it's the 21st century, we can't do that anymore.
By the way... is anyone concerned about China? They have agenda's too. And are fully poised (or will be in 25 years) to leverage opportunity. Unless of course Rock and Roll takes over the world, like it did the Eastern Bloc.
Rock on! It's our only hope. Sprout sandwiches and Rock music.
4 - Joanie
Bravo, Flip! Bravo!
5 - RJ
Nice post, Flip.
"We invaded Iraq, Osama isn't in Iraq, and we haven't caught Osama. Therefore, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we would have caught Osama."
This kind of "logic" only makes sense to those who are already inclined to believe such things, or are just really stupid.
6 - gonzo marx
deliberate fucking with the Idea there RJ..
it's more like..we righteously invaded Afghanistan..and instead of finishing the job there, catching bin Laden, and helping the Afghani's towards a stable democracy , we went into Iraq, ill prepared, ill equipped, then left the borders open, and let folk riot and loot...and now are still dealing with that...all the while bin Laden is still loose...terrorists do their fucked up shit (seems like they are not distracted and staying in Iraq, no matter what the Shrub says)..Afghanistan is the number one exporter of opium poppies...
i have said over and over again..now we have to stay in Iraq, we broke it, we are Responsible for fixxing it...would that the same responsibility had been shown to the Afghani people...
would that the Responsibility had been show towards our Troops before sending them off to Iraq without adequate numbers or equipment to get the Task done with minimum loss of life
but you keep up with your dittohead shit, don't let silly things like facts, or history , get in your way
Excelsior
7 - RJ
Hey, remember the Democrat LIE back in 2004 that re-electing Bush = a renewal of the Draft?
Whatever happened to that? ;-)
8 - RJ
BTW, both Iraq and Afghanistan are making serious progress towards democracy. And we haven't had to reinsitute the Draft to do it. And we've done it in under 4 years. And at a smaller loss of life than we incurred during a single day in September 2001. And we haven't had a single major terrorist attack in the US since then.
And most of the pre-9/11 AQ leadership is either dead or in jail. And the rest are in hiding.
And Lebanon is now free from Syrian occupation, and is going about democratic elections. And Egypt is allowing multi-party elections. And Libya gave up its WMD program. And both SA and Kuwait have instituted meaningful democratic reforms. And the Palestinians have what appears to be a democratic and peaceful government now, as opposed to the terrorist despotism of Arafat.
But, still: BU$CH IS HITLER!!!
9 - Dave Nalle
Back to the original post, it raises the quesiton why Al Qaeda attacked Britain rather than Italy. After their success in Spain Italy seems like a really good target to go after - much more likely to buckle than the Brits. Also makes me wonder if Italy isn't next on the list.
Dave
10 - RJ
Rome could very well be next. Or maybe Sydney. Or Warsaw.
These monsters have a massive list of potential targets, and all the time in the world to carry out their evil plans.
11 - Nick Jones
"Hey, remember the Democrat LIE back in 2004 that re-electing Bush = a renewal of the Draft? Whatever happened to that? ;-)"
Wait for it.
12 - Flip
You mean the draft that has only been legislatively sponsored by Democrats?
How they managed to hang that around Bush's neck, I'll never understand.
13 - Al Barger
Well, they DIDN'T manage to hang that draft nonsense around Bush's neck- or he wouldn't have been re-elected.
Hard telling what to do about terrorists, as they're naturally playing us, looking for our weak points, making themselves difficult to pick out and get at.
Still, we seem to be making progress at thinning the ranks. In fairness, you have to give Dubya at least some credit for his efforts there.