Fred, "decimate" means "reduce by 10%." It does not mean "destroy."

The conventional wisdom throughout most of history is that any armed force suffering a 10% loss to its ranks has suffered enough damage to break its fighting spirit. Hence the term came to be used popularly for "shattering" an opposed force.

It's only a loose rule, though, this 10% business. Japanese units in World War II were particularly effective at disproving it, often fighting to the last man.

In other words, "decimation" as a measure of success is looking mighty flaky.

Using "decimation" in this context is also questionable for another reason. Al-Queda knows that every dead jihadist is a new hero, inspiring others to take up the cause. We're fighting a hydra; lop off a head and two more appear. Not only does decimation fail to bring a decisive political victory (the only kind that matters to history), it actually accelerates the radicalization of the Arab world.

If we want to avoid the "hero" phenomenon, we won't "decimate" Al-Queda, we'll prosecute them and toss them in prison. There is no great heroism or honor in rotting in jail, not compared to ascending on the wings of angels to a just reward in Paradise. (If you fail to give them due process, though, you're just asking for them to be seen as martyrs of a lesser sort.)

Treating the "war on terror" as a "war" is, frankly, ignorant. War is, by definition, armed conflict between two or more states. Islamic terrorists don't have a state, not since we took down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Whatever motives the Administration had for invading Iraq, fighting a war on terror there was a fiction. The terrorists only gained a foothold in Iraq after we invited ourselves in as foreign invaders.

What Gen. Petraeus has to say is of no interest to me. I already know the military forces he commands can beat any enemy they're likely to encounter in a stand-up fight; that will be true even after he draws down his forces significantly. All of my questions concern the political process of rebuilding a failed state - a state we forced into failure. The absence of a functioning legitimate government, and the lack of a plan to establish one, tells me pretty much what I need to know. Iraq no longer exists as a nation. Our strategy of allying with this or that tribal or sectarian group against some other tribal or sectarian group only deepens the divides and shreds what little authority remains to the national government.

Honestly, I think we'd be better off at this point to abandon the whole idea of Iraq, which wasn't a very good idea to start with; since its establishment it's been a nation sick with sects and tribes who hated each other passionately, a nation which could only exist under authoritarianism. Divide it into smaller, more homogenous nations.

Turkey won't like the idea, but frankly, we're the ones stupidly taking casualties and burning treasure, not Turkey. If Turkey wants to take over from us and try to piece Iraq back together, they're more than welcome to try. We'll try not to let the door hit our butts on the way out.

From m-w.com:

Main Entry: dec·i·mate
Pronunciation: 'de-s&-"mAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin decimatus, past participle of decimare, from decimus tenth, from decem ten
1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier -- John Dryden>
3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

The word originated from the Romans, who would kill every tenth man in order to pacify a village. Yes, the original meaning was to reduce by 10%, but the accepted usage of a word does change over time. Fred's use of decimated conforms to definition #3 above and is perfectly acceptable in modern English.

"The conventional wisdom throughout most of history is that any armed force suffering a 10% loss to its ranks has suffered enough damage to break its fighting spirit. Hence the term came to be used popularly for "shattering" an opposed force."

What an interesting bit of nonsense. I suppose I could list dozens of examples like World War One or the Eastern Front of WW2 where units regularly took casualties greater than 10% of their effective strength in the course of a single day and yet the "fighting spirit" of the opposing armies was not broken, but it's rather obvious that you're here to spew BS than discuss.

"Al-Queda knows that every dead jihadist is a new hero, inspiring others to take up the cause. We're fighting a hydra; lop off a head and two more appear. Not only does decimation fail to bring a decisive political victory (the only kind that matters to history), it actually accelerates the radicalization of the Arab world."

More unsupported nonsense. It's obvious yet again that you don't know what you're talking about; what "radicalizes" the Arab psyche is not being "decimated." We can see this in Hezbollah's declaration of victory in Lebanon in 2006 being muted by Sheikh Nasrallah's subsequent admission that if he had known that Israel would level a good bit of Hezbollah-controlled Beirut suburbs and most of Lebanon south of the Litani River, he wouldn't have started the war. We see it in the marked deterioration of the ability of Palestinian terrorists to carry out terrorist attacks even inside the West Bank as Israel did more than "decimate" the mid and top-level leadership of the terrorist groups. We see it in the inability of the Taliban to do anything more than move about the countryside and try to ambush the ISAF and Afghan Army rather than try to take and hold valuable territory; any time they stay in one place, we kill them by the dozens and they get nothing for it in return. We have hopefully seen it in Iraq with the drop in American combat deaths in the past three months.

"Treating the "war on terror" as a "war" is, frankly, ignorant. War is, by definition, armed conflict between two or more states. Islamic terrorists don't have a state, not since we took down the Taliban in Afghanistan. Whatever motives the Administration had for invading Iraq, fighting a war on terror there was a fiction. The terrorists only gained a foothold in Iraq after we invited ourselves in as foreign invaders."

You are, frankly, ignorant. War is, by definition, armed conflict between two or more groups.

You are lying regarding the motives of the Administration in regards to the war. Bush listed support of terrorism second, after WMD, and before spreading democracy, in his reasons for taking out Saddam. It is undeniable that Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorists and had a bunch of old 1980s terrorists palling around in Baghdad on the IIS' dime. After Bush called him on twelve years of intransigence in 2002 Saddam basically let any terrorist who felt like coming to Iraq come in and set up shop to be used as auxiliaries to fight the American invasion. The terrorists only gained a foothold in Iraq after Saddam stopped supplying them at arms' length and gave them carte blanche to run around the Sunni Triangle doing whatever they wanted as long as they didn't do it with the intent of opposing him. By your logic, if only George Bush had just let Saddam keep playing games with the Palestinians and other terrorists as well but kept himself away from al-Qaeda, everything would be fine. I'm sure all the relatives of dead Jews whose murderer's families got 25K from Saddam would agree with you, and all the people killed by Abu Sayyaf, also a recipient of Saddam's largesse, and all the ones killed by Abu Nidal, etc.

"What Gen. Petraeus has to say is of no interest to me."

Then you have no room to speak. Feel free to shut up.

"All of my questions concern the political process of rebuilding a failed state - a state we forced into failure."

Thirty years of Baathist socialism, including a decade of crippling sanctions also brought about by Baathist misadventures, Baathist embezzlement of aid money that was supposed to feed and medicate the people of Iraq, are really all our fault. You're an idiot.

"The absence of a functioning legitimate government, and the lack of a plan to establish one, tells me pretty much what I need to know."

You've already shown yourself as not knowing anything, so why should we care?

"Iraq no longer exists as a nation. Our strategy of allying with this or that tribal or sectarian group against some other tribal or sectarian group only deepens the divides and shreds what little authority remains to the national government."

Funny, that's not what the people actually over there are saying. Matt Sanchez, Bill Ardolino, Michael Totten, Michael Yon, the dozens of milbloggers, Michael Gordon of the New York Times, Iraqi politicians, average Iraqis, the list goes on and on. Never let the facts get in the way of the narrative, huh moron?

Considering the recent reports on Iraq concerning the state of the Iraqi Army, the statement that the national government has little authority can only be looked at as laughable. Maybe you could go over to Iraq and tell an Iraqi Army checkpoint how they have little authority, tell us what happens.

"Honestly, I think we'd be better off at this point to abandon the whole idea of Iraq, which wasn't a very good idea to start with; since its establishment it's been a nation sick with sects and tribes who hated each other passionately, a nation which could only exist under authoritarianism. Divide it into smaller, more homogenous nations."

What a truly retarded argument. Iraqi sects did not particularly hate each other until Saddam. Saddam was not authoritarian, he was a Stalinist but with himself instead of Stalin. Japan in WW2 was authoritarian, there's a difference sorry. How these little fiefdoms would be able to resist being absorbed by Saudi Arabia and Iran as auxiliaries in a proxy war, where the US has no influence whatsoever over the combatants or the events barring re-invasion, and why that situation would be better than the current one is something you leave unexplained - undoubtedly because you aren't up to it.

"Turkey won't like the idea, but frankly, we're the ones stupidly taking casualties and burning treasure, not Turkey. If Turkey wants to take over from us and try to piece Iraq back together, they're more than welcome to try. We'll try not to let the door hit our butts on the way out."

Go shove some turkey up your ass defeatist.

Ahhhhh another Bush loyalist who doesnt think Bush lied to the country--BTW-He lied.

Supporting terrorists implied that he supported the terrorists of 911-NOT the terrorists who are after Israel--The PLO was indeed a thorn in the side of Israel but had no connection to the events of 911. To intimate that Bush wasnt referring to Al Queida but to the PLO is bullshite and you know it. Saddam Hussein knew damn well that Bin Laden was a powerful guy and that to align himself with Al Queida was to sacrifice his own power-maybe even wind up dead like several of the prior dictators before him. Hussein was not a nice guy, but he wasnt stupid-he didnt want Al Queida in Iraq and prior to the US invasion, there was no Al Queida in Iraq.

Had Bush stood up in 2003 and claimed that the reason for going into Iraq was to strike at the PLO (who have no recognized formal relationship with Iraq but did take money and weapons from Hussein) and that he wanted to "spread democracy" no one would have supported the war. Bush counted on two major things to get his pro war vote-FEAR of WMD in the hands of Al Queida and anger over 911 as enough vengence in the USA heart to think this was part of the revenge. Note also that even Canada has troops in Afghanistan-had Bush simply worked on getting Bin Laden and on taking out Al Queida, we would not have to be in Iraq-now Bin Laden is free and US forces are stretched thin.

Bush lied-THOUSANDS died (I count innocent Iraqis he has killed too-over 100,000 and counting).