Young Conservative Movement

After Zarqawi, No Clear Path In Weary Iraq... ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!???? That has to be the most opinionated headlines I have ever seen in my entire life.

Did you even read the article? It is not about the U.S. or Bush's "path" to fighting terrorism, BUT says there still exists no "clear path" for the Iraq people. Many smaller groups still fight amoung themselves in this tough time for the Iraq people. The news media is NOT always about Bush.

The media has been moving their smear campaign of the Republican Party for years. This is another attempt to overshadow a major victory in Iraq. We killed the top leader in Iraq. Leaders cannot be replaced. Do you think if someone killed Reagan he would have been replaced? No. Leaders that can lead a revolution are few and far between.

And you just discovered this? Wow, I am impressed. Let me remind you that terrorists are acting like a quasi-government in continuity. Even if you kill the head, the rest of the body will still function. There is always someone taking its place.

It does not matter if the leader is "removed", the government continues to operate. If Reagan was gone, Bush Sr. would have taken over. Then the Speaker, the Senate Pro Tempore, and so on.

There are hidden terror cells across the world and they are supposed to operate in a semi-independent mode.

If that were true, Bush Sr. would have pushed ahead the Reagan conservative agenda in his presidency. He did not. The conservative movement went flat under his presidency. Newt Gingrich is another example. He lead the contract with America that furthered the conservative movement. Now congress has no strong leader and the conservative movement has stalled or even taken a few steps backward. There is not always someone to lead.

There were still leaders but they either had their own agendas or were just bad leaders. They still lead but in a different direction. You kill a terrorist leader, and the next leaders still will believe in terrorism and fear, that does not change. The U.S., your example, is a very different situation.

Exactly! However, he may stand for terrorism, but more than likely will not lead as well as Zarqawi. I hate to admit it, but Zarqawi was an excellent leader. He was able to motivate and organize many attackers. More than likely, the new leader will not be as strong. He will likely not be able to mobilize his men as well. This could have a cascading effect. It will certainly lead to a decreased amount attacks. This will likely lead to further rejection of these extremists from society by the Iraqi people.

Could security be truly achieved in Iraq? Would the US leave if ALL car bombings, suicide attacks in public places, and the assassinations of local and regional leaders stop? Or close to 100%?

Bush, Rumsfeld say as long as necessary. That's an ideal answer. How much more should we spend next year on Iraq? Another 100 billion? 200 billion? You cannot maintain an occupation force for a decade? You might as well treat Iraq as a US colony. It will become harder for Bush to get more money if domestic issues are not handled, the economy starts to slow down, or a major terrorist attack happens on US soil.

I'm glad Zarqawi dead, but will it speed up the withdrawal of US troops?