I have been watching the growth of Zarqawi's terrorist network quite closely since 2002 when a Tawid terror cell in Germany was busted planning suicide attacks on Jewish soft targets across the country. The Iraq War has allowed Zarqawi to greatly build up his network at a rate that he could have never achieved without it.
Basically, a young smart Saudi Wahhibist shows up at Zarqawi's door in Iraq and he either sends them to battle in Iraq or orders him to be part of his network in Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. The Iraq War also greatly empowered Zarqawi to the point were he is trying to recentralize the terrorist cells around the world under his command. Basically, he is also using money and his stature to try to buy the loyality of the decentralized terrorist cells (that decentralized after the attack on Afghanistan) in Europe and elsewhere.
http://tinylink.com/...
http://tinylink.com/...
Most of his network he likely doesn't have direct control over, but influences from afar.
The problem this presents for democrats is that seeking to move toward the position of demanding a withdrawal from Iraq is frought with risks because of this. Bin Laden told Zarqawi from info from his laptop to attack Europe in a spectacular way and they discussed possible targets. As Zarqawi's network has grown while gobbling up much of the compitition it is really only a matter of time before he activates part of his network somewhere in Europe.
Here is the problem I see for democrats. It is clear we have a potent weapon to use against the GOP that the Iraq War has made the US and the world much less safe and made Zarqawi much more powerful. Thus, I do believe if a major terrorist attack in Europe occurs in the next three years (and I am talking a spectacular attack much larger then a couple guys with suicide belts) and it can be linked to the Zarqawi network (which wouldn't be hard even if he didn't order it considering how well linked his network is with every jihadi group in Europe) that the net result would be the average American turning even harder against the GOP for making the world less safe.
But, there is a problem for democrats in all of this. If they do become the anti war party (not just being against the war and believing we have to win) like Howard Dean. But, instead if dems collectively decided to damand a withdrawal from Iraq the GOP could easily be able to turn a big potental negative (a Iraq linked terrorist attack in Europe) into a big potental positive that the democrats want to surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda monsters and put your national security at risk. The GOP knows such an attack today like that would have little ring in the US because the media would pound it right back at them that you guys created the problem we are in. However, in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack the same rules will not apply. The dems would look like total idiots if they had to drop their demands for an immediate withdrawl after a major Iraq linked terrorist attack abroad.
That is why I think what the party doing today is nearing the right position. It is good that we are hitting the GOP on the reasons to have gone to war. At the same time I don't feel the democratic party has done nearly enough to attack the actual conduct of the war. And, attacking the conduct of the war actually forces the DoD and military to make changes that save lifes. The only attack I can recall from heart that dems have repeated is not enough troops at the beginning, which is an ok attack, but not nearly enough.
Why did it have to be one US soldier who stood up in 2004 who called Rummy on the fact US Humvees weren't being armored? Why did the democratic party not collectively hit them over the head with that before hand?
Now I am off on a 12 hour road trip. sigh.