Chances are there were no defections only deceptions involved here. It is taught to all who follow Islam that the use of deception is not only permissible but encouraged in pursuit of their goals.
It is naive and could be damn stupid to ever fall for the BS that some Islamic group is moderate or peaceful right after or during a conflict involving their sect or group call it what you like.
I truly believe there is NO such thing as a lasting peaceful solution when dealing with the CULT that is Islam.
As I see it there are two choices.
#1. Beat the enemy down enough reduce there threat outside of there borders and enforce a strict embargo on anything that could used or made into something that could be used as a weapon and contain them 100% by use of what ever force is required, mostly drones and heavily armed and armored border controls.
#2. Annihilate the enemy to a man. But that might raise a few eyebrows in the World community.
This means we have one choice unless some controlling forces within Iraq step up and miraculously become effective and take solid control.
As an incentive I believe we need to give the current Gov, Leadership the word in no uncertain terms what we expect and when we expect it and no more of this wishful thinking like President George W. Bush or coming at everything from a position of weakness and Appeasement like Obama has done.
True, an enemy that hides among the population is harder to find. That just means that it will take a little longer to find him, but when we do, we hit him with an extreme amount of violence, killing him and anyone that supports him.The problem isn't killing the enemy. The problem is locating the enemy.
IOW, you don't have a single clue as what to do; only your Liberal posturing?The same way we recognized the threat that was used to justify the invasion to begin with, I guess.
In other words, neither!
I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
If you can't handle historical relevancy, then prhaps you should find something else to do with your spare time, other than debating politics online.
We do? Please, show how we suck at it. Can't wait to hear how you explain to us how American soldiers suck at defeating the enemy.A little longer? It's been several years, and we still suck at it.
So, you'll support a pre-emptive strike by any president--regardless of political persuasion--based on the intel that he has at that time? Be honest!No -- with good old-fashioned intelligence, the way we catch a lot of things -- both real and imagined. Ergo, you catch them neither before nor after they kill Americans.
Ok, you've said it, but you've never once--that I've seen--taken a Right Wing stance on anything. Judging from your monicker, I'm guessing you're a big time 2nd Amendment guy, but I think that's where you're Right Wing'ness ends.As I have both said and demonstrated on a number of occasions, I am not a liberal. Please stop lying about me.
Nobody is denying that the military invasion in 2003 went splendidly -- unequal warfare almost always ends with a quick declaration of victory from the more powerful aggressor. But it then gives way to occupation, which is often disastrous for the more powerful aggressor.
So, then, no, the occupation was not going splendidly.
The low level of violence, is the reason for the insurgency.Nobody is denying that the military invasion in 2003 went splendidly -- unequal warfare almost always ends with a quick declaration of victory from the more powerful aggressor. But it then gives way to occupation, which is often disastrous for the more powerful aggressor.
"Occupation", is just another one of those catch phrases the anti-war leftists use to poorly attempt to make some kinda point at, whatever.So, then, no, the occupation was not going splendidly.
At any rate, the word "occupation" is really, really not some sort of "anti-war leftist phrase". It is in full military parlance, and it is the correct term for the 2003-2010 period of American involvement in Iraq.
There were no staged battles, there were no front lines, there wasn't even an opposing army -- insurgents fought against occupying American and NATO troops -- thus making it an occupation. This is really not up for debate.