Much has been stated about the fact that we were wrong to enter Iraq. That success is measured by how quickly we can get out of Iraq.

Consider this: Iraq is in the heart of what most extremist Muslims consider holy ground. By attacking Iraq we attacked the heart of what the extremist Muslim holds dear. They have responded in force. Millions of dollars and extremist soldiers have been spent by those terrorists defending their "homeland". Those same dollars and terrorists could have been spent attacking civilian targets around the world, including the United States. But they were not, they were spent attacking our trained soldiers, who are far better protected than the soft targets they would have attacked had we not entered Iraq. As a bonus we got rid of a ruthless dictator who was trampling all over human rights and killing all who opposed him. A dictator who regularly made speeches threatening America and American interests. A dictator who regularly aided terrorists and rewarded them for attacking Israel. A dictator who had proven that he was capable of using weapons of mass destruction, even on entire villages in his own country. A dictator who regularly implied that he would attack our soldiers with weapons of mass destruction if they entered the country. A dictator known to have the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. The fact that he was full of hot air, that his scientists were not currently producing any such weapon is fortunate hindsight. He could have been doing so, we had some indications he might have been doing so, and it served our purposes to come to the aid of those he was harming and killing within his own country. Have we been successful? Attacks against American interests, against Americans, against America have been very low or non-existent outside of the battlefield we chose. We are not fighting the terrorists on the streets of New York, LA, Dallas or Chicago. Nineteen terrorists killed 2,974 people on 9/11. Today, our trained soldiers are killing far more terrorists than they are killing Americans. THAT is success. Have we lost many good soldiers in the fight, yes. I attend the funerals of every soldier killed from my home town and it is a very sad thing every time we lose a soldier who had a bright and happy life ahead of him or her. However, they have sacrificed their lives defending us from terrorists, not because Al Queda existed or did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, but because after we invaded Iraq the terrorists have been so busy trying to get us out of Iraq that they have left us alone elsewhere. We are choosing the when, where, who, what, and how for the battle on terror. THAT is how you win a war. Previously they chose who, when, what, how, and where and we were reacting to their choices, not anymore.

Have we made some mistakes, sure, we have human beings running the war. Intelligent human beings waging war against an intelligent and determined enemy. We try to determine what they will do and prepare. They try to figure out what we are going to do and foil our plans. Mistakes are made on both sides, we just hope they make more than us. But if anyone thinks this should have been easy, if anyone thinks that the only reason we are not already out of Iraq is because of our mistakes or that we are fighting a dumb enemy, they are seriously underestimating the enemy. No one said the war on terror was going to be easy. Some may have thought that things went so well it would be a short war in Iraq, but no one said the war against the terrorists would be easy. We are fighting the terrorists on two fronts, in two countries, that is always difficult. Unfortunately, the terrorists do not think of Afghanistan as Holy ground, but they were willing to train there and exploit the local populations to achieve their goals. They would not and have not rushed to defend Afghanistan as they have rushed to defend Iraq. They are well funded and have intelligent leaders, but so are we and for the most part, we are fighting them on our terms, in the locations of our choosing, where we can control the timing to a large degree, and we are fighting them with the very best trained, best equipped, and most courageous group of fighting men and women in the world. Could they be better equipped, maybe. Should they be, absolutely. But there is no fighting force better equipped than our soldiers. There is no finer example of Courage and Honor than the men and women of our military. Not perfect, just better.

We will win, as long as we don't turn and run for our home ground. If we do, the terrorists will be glad to follow us and fight here at the time and places of their choosing. Just like on 9/11.

Let's not surrender ground in the fight on terror that has been purchased with the blood of our courageous men and women, just to advance the causes of a political party. THAT is failure, and failure that spits on the graves of our brave men and women who believed in the United States and Freedom so much they were willing to volunteer to fight and die in order to protect our Freedom and our Honor. Our Freedom to go to work, to travel, to play without the fear of being "Bitch slapped" on our own soil. Never again!!!

I hope you brush regularly. Drinking that much kool-aid can cause cavities. :-)

Hello ProudofourSoldiers. I can tell, you are a sincere individual that cares deeply about our country, those we send to fight in far off lands, and the resolve for victory.

Belittling our president or debating the wisdom of invading Iraq serves no useful purpose, as we could go on adnausium. Even talking about the lack of pondering, on how we would secure the country and occupy it, is not in contest in my reply to you.

I choose, in the Fray, not to identify myself too much, but I must tell you, I am no stranger to battle and conflicts most people never knew we were involved in.

That said, the war on terror is a world wide mission.

Unfortunately, this administration, which I voted for, chose(and that's a key word - chose) to direct our resources to a country that posed no threat to us, at the moment. We had them bottled-up and we could have kept them on the back burner to deal with later.

Our war was in the Afghanistan region. You must finish one thing before you start another. Now we don't have the conventional foot print nor the special operations foot print to deal with the so called war on terror.

You've heard the word half-baked? That is exactly the way our armed forces have been employed, half-baked.

It is because of this that I am so disappointed and privately quite angry.

We will never defeat international terrorism. What we can, and must do, is contain it. We cannot impose democracy on cultures that have no understanding of it.

Do you recall the author James Jones? Let me leave you with a contemporary passage from him please, "Casuualties are one of war's grimmer realities. In a way perhaps its most important element. An army that cannot take casuallties cannot fight. And an army that takes too many will lose."

Our casulties will not just be in blood, they will be in the demoralization of the man and women out front in something they see no end to.

Well said, Tyrtaios. The war on terror is not a one-country affair, and if it were, that country would not be Iraq.

First of all, they only attack every 7 or 8 years. They first tried to knock down the WTC in 1993, but fell just short of their goal. They came back again in 2001, after they had a few years to plan and organize.

Second, we are not "keeping them too busy" so they're unable to make trouble outside the theater of war we so cleverly chose. They blew the holy crap out of the commuter rail system in Madrid, and they were cooking up some nastiness in London before their explosives failed to work.

Your whole analysis of who is opposing us and why is way, way off the mark. The huge majority of people we have killed in Iraq are not connected to al Qaida at all. It's an insurgency, and we've only started to realize some success after switching to a counter-insurgency strategy.

So what you're saying is that it's acceptable to destroy a country that posed no threat to us, kill its citizens, and displace most of the rest of them as long as it keeps you safe and warm.

I was one of those soldiers you are proud of and I'm proud of them too. But this is not what a military is for nor is this what America is about. What you are saying is indecent. Jesus wept.

It could be argued that Iraq did pose threats to American interests, but the facts that Americans were basically duped into supporting a war by our very own government and media creates a lengthly sour taste. I've heard the argument that the invasion of Iraq turned that country into the battle ground for Americas fight against extremists. We took the battle to their backyard! That makes sense. The problem is that we didn't ask Iraq if they'd mind if we cleared their country of all structure and used to to fight with individual terrorist organizations across the middle east and africa. It was an ill conceived and ill executed conflict that in the end will result in more trouble. However we exit.

You are supposed to ask permission first before you fight your ideological battles in other countries? What good is being a superpower anymore these days? Sheesh!

We took the battle to their backyard...thereby making it easier for them to fight it. Sure is harder to kill 3,000 Americans on American soil than it is to kill 3,000 Americans who are sent right to your neighborhood.

The problem with this is whatever bogeymen are out there determined to strike at America are still out there and they are aren't tied down in Iraq. They can still come here given enough time, money and opportunity.

The goal is to deny them the money and opportunity which we have been doing a better job of.

ObL doesn't have to spend anymore of his fortune to make another attack on American soil. Americans are destroying their own country from the inside out and this war is draining us dry. His work is done.

Yes, I think it's morally reprehensible to invade a country "for their own good" without asking them if they wanted to die so the original poster can continue to get his morning Starbucks or shop for his faux Tuscan dream bathroom fear free. But it's also morally reprehensible to prosecute a war that accomplishes nothing except to cause suffering to innocent people.

"We took the battle to their backyard...thereby making it easier for them to fight it. Sure is harder to kill 3,000 Americans on American soil than it is to kill 3,000 Americans who are sent right to your neighborhood."

How does this make sense to you? It was obvious that our previous plan of action for fighting terrorism was only emboldening them....they wiped out 3000 Americans in a matter of minutes, meanwhile with Americans abroad....it took them 3 years to accomplish the same task. Instead of 19 of them dieing to accomplish the murderous success they achieved on our soil, they've lost thousands to achieve the same since we've been in their "backyard".

I'm not denying the possibility of an attack on our soil, but right now....AQ has to finance a fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, tightening the squeeze on a budget that could be spent elsewhere had we not entered their "backyard". You are under the impression that "we" are the only ones suffering....AQ is getting it's ass handed to it. It's PR has turned into damage control more and more.

It was obvious that our previous plan of action for fighting terrorism was only emboldening them....

Emboldened. The most overused word in the language. I don't disagree with you but taking the fight to them has in no way dis-emboldened them. You simply can't prove that. In fact, it has made us more enemies.

But 9.11 wasn't just about killing Americans and if you don't understand that then you don't understand that. As I said before ObL got what he wanted which was perma-war, a divided America, a bankrupting economy.

By the way, I assume you noted GWB bombed a site in Somalia yesterday. Sort of reminds you of the previous plan of action, doesn't it?

So you're telling me that 3,000 lives over three years are not as valuable as 3,000 lives in a few hours? I fail to see how one loss of life is more acceptable than the other.

AQ doesn't have to finance fights in Afghanistan or Iraq. The insurgency is a loose coalition of many different groups taking the opportunity to try and kill Americans. An opportunity they wouldn't have if we didn't bring Americans to them.

AQ may be getting its ass handed to it but that does not seem to stop the new groups from stepping up to fill the void. Terrorists are like cockroaches, you aren't going to be able to stand in one place and stamp them out. We need to fight smarter, not harder.

I understand that 9/11 was as much symbolic as it was tragic. I agree that loss of life no matter how quick or slow it occurrs is no less acceptable. The point I was making was that it is costing our foes a lot more in manpower, time, and resources in order to achieve the same results. This is the big difference between them attacking us at home versus abroad in their "backyard". If we aren't hitting them in their house, they will come to ours.

And AQ does have to finance the various and loosely aligned coalitions. Those affiliates do have ways to make their own money....but they do recieve money, weapons, and support from AQ. I haven't a clue to how much money OBL and AQ have available....but this venture is as taxing on their finances and resources, if not more, than it is on us.

And yes, we still bomb terrorist hideouts wherever we find them....so I find nothing of significant note that we bombed a hut in Somalia. It doesn't validate Clinton's strategy....simply dropping bombs on suspected hideouts as the only tactic in one's took kit is a bit shallow.

If we aren't hitting them in their house, they will come to ours.

I just think this is faulty logic. They can still come here and they may still be here. ObL still has loads of money and he can still buy terrorists. Iraq is not their house. Most of the 9.11 suiciders were from Saudi Arabia. They come from all over and they don't respect boundaries. The reason they haven't come here again is because they don't have to. All those AQ and AQ in Iraq terrorists being killed are just sacrifices. They just annoy us and cause us to spend billions just like the Soviet Union did in Aftghanistan. And if they can sustain it long enough we will end up bankrupt too.

For all we know ObL could have another plot going on right now in the US. What will stop it is not our presence in Iraq but our newly energized awareness and our defense.

It does not cost anywhere near as much to blow up a couple of mentally ill women as it does to drop a guided bomb. Do you have any idea how much fuel is being wasted in Iraq right now? Tankers go up almost every day. If fighters don't use that fuels the tankers have to dump it before landing. It's not all that well coordinated. I would bet we will run out of money before they do.

The only thing insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them in Iraq can't control is whether the Iraqi government can pull it together...and they haven't yet.

In the meantime, many innocent people are suffering and dying. No, the strike in Somalia does not validate Clinton's strategy but it seems this is the only tactic in the Bush playbook right now. Stay in Iraq forever, bomb a few huts in Somalia.

The mujaheddin (pre AQ) in Afghanistan were supported both financially and materially by the United States....or they would have been cased. The Soviets were nowhere near as "tolerant" as we have been in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I prefer the fact that they "have to" come to the United States with the aim of killing Americans. I favor the idea that they stay in their own yard trying to kill the Americans, heavily armed Americans. If AQ finds it in their interest to attack hard targets vice soft (like we have in America), so be it...they've lost a lot of the faithful with that tactic. Like I said, thousands vice the 19 they lost attacking our homeland.

And I again agree, this does not make us impervious to terrorism and any plot OBL may be developing.

You're drinking the kool-aid again. :-)