Or ‘Obama born in Kenya’, or ‘FEMA death camps’, or ‘death panels’ or ‘George Bush greatest president’,….

You and the truth just aren’t on speaking terms, are you?

The President has cracked that Fox News is not a “real news organization.” But it is, like the NY Post, The Wall St. Journal and other establishment publications that might disagree with Obama and others on the Left. Political correctness is an ideology or mythology that construes the world a certain way. Anything that doesn’t jibe with the party line is brushed aside and discredited. Its artists become non-artists, etc.

The new rules of engagement in Afghanistan prohibit bombing where civilians might be injured. Naturally, the Taliban makes certain it is often in the company of civilians. This reduces the Air Forces to buzzing huts where suspected Taliban are hiding out. The drone-Hellfire strikes have killed al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership; and some civilian casaulties havebeen tolerated in this program. But are these small gains enough to win the war?

I doubt it. It is much better to win a war any way you can and be generous to your defeated enemies, than it is to lose a war and say you played by the rules.

Learning from the Soviets, really learning from Afghanistan itself,
would have taught us that the various local groups always make deals
with each other and that the Northern Alliance was bound to have let
bin Laden go. All sides have been doing this kind of thing forever in
that country. It was “easier” because to actually get bin Laden would
have required Bush to use more US troops and therefore would have
caused more casualties.

1. That’s what I’m talking about: you can blithely armchair general your way to a perfect strategy that creates a perfect outcome. No problem for you. Why aren’t you on the NSC telling the president what to do?
Is it worth pointing out that your so-called analysis of this history is based on hindsight, that is, it’s no analysis at all? Probably not.
2. Could Bush have used more troops? Was it possible politically and militarily? As you say, more troops equals more casualties. Would this have then changed the situation into one even worse than the one we’re in right now?

The point is, as in all so-called analysis based on hindsight, you’re comparing today’s situation with some ideal situation of your own imagination. To have any credibility at all, you’d have to at least consider the outcome of a scenario such as the one you propose, i.e., “more troops.” If you can’t or won’t consider this, then your opinions are not worth much, except as demagoguery.

Iraq became the “center” of al-Qaeda after we invaded. Not before.
al-Qaeda’s strategy has always been (as it says repeatedly), to plant
its flag somewhere, get the US to invade and then bleed the US out.

True. So what? Getting al Qaeda to fight where we chose was a central tenet of Bush’s strategy. It worked, and so Afghanistan was on the back burner for a while.

Yes al-Qaeda as a kind of ideology is a network. Worldwide jihadism is
at this point, a “leaderless network” (in Marc Sageman’s phrase). That
is always going to be there.

1. If the first sentence is true, then why your emphasis on “getting” bin Laden? Makes no sense at all.

2. All networks are “leaderless,” in the sense that nobody is directing it. If that weren’t true, then it wouldn’t be a network. It would be a hierarchy. You don’t need Marc Sageman to tell you that.

3. Is it always going to “be there?” Lend us your crystal ball. Like I said, the NSC needs you—and your ball. A point you may want to think about: it won’t “be there” if they’re defeated. You’re conceding defeat. Maybe conceding defeat is the right thing to do, but most people will disagree, including me.

It would stop the US from seeing all these groups as part of some
worldwide conspiracy and start to see them (and deal with them) as much
more localized groups. Or in the leaderless jihad case, basically
anarchists without any real political goals.

1. The “US” does not see a “worldwide conspiracy.” You’re forgetting the implications of al Qaeda’s being a network. There is no “conspiracy” in any sense of the word, but there is a general ideological commitment and resources for jihad that are accessible to jihadists through Islamic charities. And so forth.

2. Jihadists do not fit the definition of “anarchists.” They have political goals: worldwide submission to Islamic law. That’s hardly “anarchism.” It’s totalitarianism. Examples of “anarchists without any real political goals” are drug gangs. These may be affiliated with al Qaeda in tactical alliances today, but you can be sure that if the worldwide Islamic government comes to pass, drug gangs will be exterminated without mercy.

You say Bush had no plan for postwar Iraq and then continue to talk about his failed plan. What gives here?

And lastly for God’s sakes, puny is not a criticism of the countries or
the people but in relation to the Cold War and by the standards of the
US hegemon.

Well, OK. But for god’s sakes, neither Granada nor Panama were “punished.” Granada was a proxy in the Cold War; Panama’s narcodictadura was overthrown and a democratic regime was established in its place.

Now obviously in America was know that there are standards of treatment for prisoners and the military does not tolerate cover ups and not following procedure.

And that’s assuming it’s true. If right-wing rhetoric was true, the last several years would have looked far different.