Taking most of what you said there as a starting point, and I agree with most of it, a localized strategy to combat those Terrorists is going to be required.

I really don't see how you can conduct those kinds of missions from 100s of miles away.  I don't know how we can't track down Terrorists in Afghanistan without having troops deployed to afghanistan.

and i don't know how we can track down terrorists in iraq without deploying troops to iraq.

also, it's been brought up that there are oil fields in iraq.  under the plan you just described, do they go unprotected if iraqis can't do so themselves?

"You can't fight two wars at once."

Sure you can! Ever heard of the Second World War? Pacific and European theaters? How about the fact that we fought Korea with huge numbers of troops still in  Europe, or Vietnam with troops in Europe and Korea? And the fact that we're fighting terrorists in several countries right now (not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but Somalia, the Phillippines, various -stans, etc.)?

I can't stand foreign policy by cliche, which seems to be what you advocate.

And the contention that if we pull out of Iraq the Al-Qaida elements there will simply follow us to Afghanistan! What a crock! Few if any of them have ever been to Afghanistan (most are Arab), and the fundamental reason Al-Qaida had bases in Afghanistan was that they COULD - it was a safe haven for terrorists. If we allow Anbar to become the same thing, they will most certainly not all leave! Sorry to unload on you like this, Dameocrat, but your conception of our enemy is completely ignorant.

I want to end this war, and I believe that the sooner we stop fighting the sectarian conflict in Iraq, the sooner it will burn itself out (at great cost of life, mind you, but that's how civil wars are). But we can't stop fighting against terrorists and hope that they will also go their own way. Because their own way is killing us.

Where do you propose such strikes come from? Outer space?

I think you need to make up your mind whether you're for anti-terrorism or not. Because if you are, then the forces that engage in that (special forces, whatever) need to be based SOMEWHERE, and need those bases to be relatively close to the people they are supposed to kill.

For the Al-Qaida elements in Iraq, I propose we fight them from bases in Kurdistan (with, perhaps, some short deployments in other parts of Sunni northern Iraq), the one part of Iraq that would gladly allow our troops to stay there for the long haul.

Well, I do like green lanterns...

Seriously, though, I think I did address that. If it's not clear in the diary, here's my response to that idea:

Iraqis most certainly cannot defeat Al-Qaida. They can probably withstand Al-Qaida's attacks, but I see no indication from Iraqi Army (meaning Shiite, of course) operations to date that they can aggessively prosecute Al-Qaida in Anbar or other Sunni areas. Which means that if we completely withdraw Al-Qaida will have re-established a safe haven from which to attack westerners and western interests around the globe.

Now, this is of course yet another example of why we shouldn't have invaded in the first place (Saddam's Sunni dictatorship was bad, but at least it didn't harbor Islamist terrorists, and had the power to prevent them from taking root, at least in Sunni regions), but unfortunately we did, and here we are.

I also should point out that if US forces leave Iraq, the number of Al-Qaida attacks IN Iraq probably would go down (less inviting targets), but the number of cross-border attacks into Jordan, Saudi, and perhaps across the globe to Europe or the US, would almost certainly soar. There is a speck of truth in the 'fight them there so we don't fight them here' right-wing talking point, if only they limited their conception of 'them' to Al-Qaida, instead of insisting that the bulk of the insurgency and sectarian conflict has anything to do with us (which it mostly doesn't).

I don't think that we can eliminate Al-Qaida, in Iraq or anywhere, without a multi-pronged fight that involves far more than just military forces. But I do think that military forces will have to be able to strike at terrorist camps, concentrations, and especially 'safe havens', or else we're giving them a free pass to strike out at us. And that means we need to keep some small number of troops somewhere in Iraq to strike at terrorists in Anbar.

Is that a direct enough address of the point?