Captain's Quarters -

Gosh darn, starfleet_dude, there they go, blowing your vibe and claiming responsiblity for killing Abu Risha.

One wonders where all these videos featuring a resurrected bin Laden, little boys hacking off heads, and fake Iraqi actor-terrorists are being filmed and produced. Surely there aren't that many Arabs with the technology or the know-how to seamlessly do this stuff.

I still think laughing at them is a powerful disincentive. When we can get your average Abdul on the street in Baghad to the point of being able to point at the latest AQI threat and giggle hysterically, then we will have won.

Dang folks, AQ has lost the support of France, Germany, Spain, and now the Sunni's in Iraq; wow, lets see, that leaves Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the American left... Their world is shrinking...

Gee, and I thought Ramadan was supposed to be the holiest month in the muslim calendar where all was peace and light and fighting and war were forbidden (especially against fellow muslims). Remember all the libs claiming that we couldn't engage in war during Ramadan because that would so inflame the 'sensibilities' of muslims against us? Well, toss that into the trashbin of rop virtues.

Welcome to ramadan, the Most pieceful month in the muslim calendar.

Do I smell al-Qaeda desperation?

Hopefully it's a sign of desperation, but no one can be certain that it won't work. Killings and other forms of brutality have worked for AQ in the past.

How long will the surge continue in Iraq, and will it be long enough to outlive this new AQ offensive? Bush's drawbacks are probably inevitable given the overstretched status of the military and our problems in increasing the size of the armed forces. The last time I checked, our military was only marginally larger than before 9/11.

This all makes we wonder why no one on the right is willing to stand up and make a strong case for re-instating the draft. I don't know if I would support that policy myself, but it's a position that should be taken and an argument worth making- especially if you believe in the surge strategy.

Keemo, I'll trade you your Germany, France, Spain and the American Left for one Saudi Arabia. But no, we can't hold the country that hosted the largest portion of the 911 hijackers, the country that got permission to fly the Bin-Laden clan out on Sept. 12th, 2001 and the country that Dear Leader kisses their ass, held to account for anything can we? I believe your priorities are a little jumbled.

Yes it is the holiest of months so they all rush to kill infidels so they can get not just there 72 virgins but many other gifts from Alia like a handy dandy guide to how to use there 72 virgins.
Seems rather strange they can go out and kill more Muslims during Ramadan, but dare to hold the 2012 Olympics during the month of Ramadan and oh my god its a plot against Muslims.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410439&in_page_id=1770

I guess its ok to kill each other but you can't run a foot race because you will be fasting wow who would of thunk it .

Al Qaeda had a bad week. Petraeus made a great presentation. We won't cut and run. AQ is losing local support.

The surge is working. Just looking at what AQ is doing!

bayam,
It’s no longer valid to measure military power in terms of boots. It would be like measuring the volume of the ocean in milliliters.

All military’s throughout the world are experiencing upgrades that bring force with less manpower, but that trend has been most profoundly notable within the US military and for very good reasons, as follows:

1) We can. We have the technology to remove troops from harms way, therefore, we do.
2) It’s economical.
3) It’s a force multiplier.

An example of this new focus on reduced manpower for weapons systems would be the newest aircraft carrier being built, the Ford, which will have a crew of under 2500 compared to a normal carrier crew of 5000. Meanwhile, it will have more firepower. The list goes on and on.

I don’t believe that our military is over-stretched at all (and neither does the military, or they would be screaming bloody murder.) As for a draft, nobody on the right is calling for one because it is not apparently needed.

"The leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq will never run short on enemies, mostly because they hate everybody."

You could have just as easily said, "The Reich-Wing in America will never run short on enemies, mostly because they hate everybody."

Hate is hate.

NahnCee;
I agree with your second statment, mockery is a great weapon against fanatics. It served well (As did other types of propiganda) durring World War Two, but today it's considered "mean" to laugh at your enemy and call him names.

Think Nazi Germany's great filmmaker and propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl... the Bush White House is employing the PR equivalent with it's new "Return on Success" slogan.

Ramadan--where the "faithful" binge all night and sleep all day for a month. I'm sure that's what their "allah" intended when he wanted them to fast every DAY during this "holy" month. Nothing but a bunch of lazy, lying a-holes.

Date,
Hate is hate. How do you feel about Bush?

Dave,
Hate is hate.
How do you feel about Bush?

Bush?

Incompetent, not a deep thinker, a person that surrounds himself with "YESMEN", mistakes PR slogans for real leadership and is in WAY over his head as Commander in Chief.

How's that Erik?

Btw, it's funny how you people expect the Iraqi people to come together when the Right-Wing would like nothing better than to forever crush dissent in America because, of course, they are the only true Americans.

This is a predictable result of the divergent approaches being utilized by the US and AQI. Having read most of the COIN manual in preparation for evaluating General Petraeus' testimony (which got me mocked for absurd levels of 'due diligence' by more than one friend!), I see that the prime mission of COIN is a flexible and adaptive attempt to secure the safety and allegiance of the host nation's populace, accepting greater levels of risk in exchange for the perception and reality of an alliance with that population against the virulent interlopers in their midst. Thus are the COIN forces in a position to increasingly leverage the cooperation of a population which comes to view them increasingly as allies in their attempts to take greater responsibility for the security which we temporarily buttress and foster.

By stark contrast, AQI seeks to intimidate and dominate the host population into acquiescence and submission to its ideological and political objectives, relying on the mantle of religion to provide a measure of legitimacy to its brutal tactics.

Strategically, the latter is a dead end to precisely the degree to which the former is applied consistently and diligently. The Host Nation (HN) populace will not fail to notice that tribal and sectarian and community and family allegiances are explicitly incorporated into the COIN force's tactics, while they are blithely ignored and/or brutally defiled by AQI's totalitarian ends and means. COIN forces sit and sip tea with tribal leaders, and talk about the futures of their sons. AQI threatens and murders tribal leaders while occasionally serving up their sons, baked alive.

This latest in the fatwah follies is the ultimate expression of AQI's terminally tin-eared approach to the populations they seek to cow and subsume. So long as we adhere to our increasingly successful new strategy, I fully expect that we will see AQI's ill-considered lashings-out become their well-deserved undoing.

Okay. "Leaflets" out'da airplanes. I've heard of stuff like that, before.

As to this Baghdad Bob arrangement; nobody's gonna replace Badhdad Bob! I just don't know why he didn't get Katie Couric's gig at C-BS. Honest.

As to the "tribes of Anbar," they've got to learn a few new tricks. And, they are, in fact, pretty backwards people.

Now, yes. They are FINALLY working with Maliki; and their parliament. After trying just about everything else.

That the A-Q guys are mad?

Keep it in mind.

Because, in the USA, we have here CODE PINK. You think no comparisons are in store? Both have spent oodles of money. ANd, both, actually, have very limited reach.

And, BOTH use the media.

Of course, A-Q used death squads. Brought in strangers (from syria and iran; who were terrorists born elsewhere. Where when they spoke the arabs heard "differences.")

How different does the same language get?

Ah. WHen the news from Glasgow broke; it wasn't that the House of Soddie's ran out of terrorists, ya know.

And, the INternet provided 24/7 coverage. So I clicked onto Sky Network. Boy, I am absolutely sure people in Glasgow speak the King's English. Of which I was able to capture a word or two; in every sentence.

So, there ya go.

In Irak. When the sunnis were seeking to grab the whole country; the sunnis saw the hired hans. Gave them "hospitality." And, discovered that there were Shi'a militias that beat the living daylights out of them, in tit-for-tat raids.

ANd, you thought you couldn't get people to "change their minds?"

Will the sunni parts always be run by the shaky-sheiks? YOU BET'CHA. But they are "inter-family intertwined." Long stretches of cousins, married to each other. Just waiting for nature to run its course.

And, while it's slow going ... at least it's going in a direction that will reclaim that ... which has arleady been blown sky high.

Michael Totten supplied the pictures of what happened in Ramadi. (After he went to the wall in Southern Lebanon, last year; Totten back-tracked. And, pointed out what military skills really look like. WHen you turn former slums into parking lots.)

The good news is that American soldiers are greeted, now, when they walk-about the streets; keeping cleared neighborhoods really, really cleared.

And, the Sheik's funeral? Maliki attended. This doesn't mean the Shia and the Sunni will "intertwine." Each group will have its own areas.

And, here's Petraeus' deal:

The sunnis are gonna have safe streets. PERIOD.

The Americans aren't gonna be the ones doing the patrolling, ahead.

But Petraeus opened up the hiring process to the locals. They're American equipped and trained. And, they go through thorough ID checks. What they have? They'll be able to patrol their own areas!

JUST. LIKE. THE. KURDS!

Kurds got there FIRST.

Shi'a second.

Sunnis are 3rd. And, all their "security" details will be working within Sunni areas. Oddly enough, this is what gives them hope.

Sunnis will not live uner the thumbs of Sadr's or Chalabi's militias.

They'll also have to figure out, for themselves, how to use their trained new army and police, to keep the iranians OUT.

By the way, language is a clue.

In Irak you can tell if someone was born in Eygpt. Or born next door.

And, you'd be surprised.

Part of being alert has to do with your ears and your eyes.

When the oil flows. And, the streets get re-built, this is GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

Separate from their head-must be banged on the ground, five times a day" bit; arabs are pretty good at understanding retail.

And, those are the choices.

To keep getting killed, randomly. Or "growing a pair."

Since the Kurds already did it; it's not as if there aren't good examples out there to follow.

A-Q's angry? Ya know what? Arabs are good at revenge. 10, 20, 30 years from now, I'd venture a guess that it's the Saudis who get to fear the blowback.

But some things just take time.

"The Reich-Wing in America will never run short on enemies, mostly because they hate everybody."

Golly gee, give us a break. It's awfully hard to match those Olympian standards of "sweetness and light" coming from you and your lefty friends these days.

Some fine examples of it in Washington today.

Dave says:
Btw, it's funny how you people expect the Iraqi people to come together when the Right-Wing would like nothing better than to forever crush dissent in America because, of course, they are the only true Americans.

Eric says:
Hate is hate.

David said:

"Think Nazi Germany's great filmmaker and propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl... the Bush White House is employing the PR equivalent with it's new "Return on Success" slogan."

As opposed to the DNC's own version of Leni, Michael Moore? You know Lumpy, hr was the guy sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Dem Convenyion.

Bayam:

Eric has done a good addressing many of your points regarding increasing our forces, but I'd like to add a few.

First, what many I think don't realize is that it takes time to put these increased forces in the field--we're talking a few years to do it and do it right. It's not like Jason and the Argonauts where you can just spread dragon's teeth on the ground and up sprout instant warriors. You have to recruit the troops, induct them, train them, house and maintain them, equip them, and pay them--all that takes money, space, and time.

Having said that, I do think that, even with the force multipliers that Eric has brought up, we do need to increase the size of certain of our forces. I think we need at least two or three more divisions of ready response infantry, and we need to bring in regular military police and other logistics and support personnel so that we can bring more of our reservists home. But again, to do all this takes time and money--you can't do it instantly. And for the forces we need, a draft isn't really the best way to go. I don't think the military's overstretched--yet--but I do think that it would be prudent to be ready--Semper Paratus is as good a motto to remember as Semper Fidelis.

At some point even the hopelessly leftwing MSM won't be able to deny al Qaeda's desperation. At that point they will say, "well of course they are deperate there are so few of them".

I think before they are through in Iraq-which in IMHO is going to be a lot sooner than most people think -al Qaeda will turn on their Democratic Party allies for not taking surrender seriously enough.

And BTW Bayam, Iraqis who are fed up and want peace are surging. I suggest you read Roggio to get a better picuture of what's happening in Iraq.

The corner has been turned.

Btw Eric, Alan Greenspan agrees with me.

Replace "lefty" and "liberal" with Sunni or Shite and your keyboards with AK's and you have some idea what's going on in Iraq.

Just like the Right will never allow those with opposing points of view any legitimacy, they do the same in Iraq with AK's and RPG's.

So here's a question... would you all support our war in Iraq if Clinton would have started it?

A few facts are needed to keep things in perspective here:

The Iraq war was started over non-existent WMD... NOT to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.

Iraq had NOT A THING to do with 9/11.

Most Iraqis support attacks on Americans.

David asks would Clinton be supported if he had started the war in Iraq.
********************************************
Well I guess it depends who he was fighting. After he lost 18 troops in Somalia, Clinton pulled our troops and switched sides and allied with Aidid, the warlord who killed them. Lord only knows who he would be supporting in Iraq by this time.

Dave says:
Btw Eric, Alan Greenspan agrees with me.

Eric says:
Really, I just spoke with Allen last week and he said you're a poo-poo head.

Dave said:

" Incompetent, not a deep thinker, a person that surrounds himself with "YESMEN", mistakes PR slogans for real leadership and is in WAY over his head as Commander in Chief. "

Thanks Dave, I don't think I could have expressed a better description of Hillary Clinton myself!

Well, I guess I would have added she: surrounds herself with Chinese criminals as campaign donors!

By the way Dave, remember Hillary's slogan when she entered the Presidential Race? No? Well, it was:

" I'm in, and I'm in to Win! "

Now considering that in 2002 Hillary Clinton voted in favor of military action in Iraq and made quite a moving speech to the Senate as to WHY we NEED to be in Iraq...her speech was so passionate I think I almost heard..."I'm in, and I'm in to Win!" ...there but maybe not.

I just wonder....when throwing her hat into the Presidential campaign ring with those words, "I'm in, and I'm in to Win!", does she actually MEAN that this time?

There's a German saying: "Viel Feind, viel Ehr". The more enemies, the more the honor. Maybe they're thinking along that line? I know the Austro-Hungarian monarchy thought like that in WW1 and look at the result...

I feel left out. Why doesn't anyone declare war on me?

John H. said:
A few facts are needed to keep things in perspective here:

1) The Iraq war was started over non-existent WMD... NOT to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

2) There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.

3) Iraq had NOT A THING to do with 9/11.

4) Most Iraqis support attacks on Americans.

Eric said:
1) By Congress. War is always declared by Congress. All of the current Democratic Candidates with the exception of Obama and Denise voted for the war.
2) It was called the Bath party then.
3) Yes, I think that they in fact did.
4) Really, I just spoke with most Iraqis last week and they said they thought you're a poo-poo head.

Dave:

If Bush was Hitler you would not be running your mouth. Hitler did not tolerate that sort of thing.

One of the things that always amazes me about the left is their adoration for mass murderers and dictators like Stalin and Mao and Castro and the Khmer Rouge and Mugabe and Hugo Chavez and Saddam etc while at the same time they never tire of comparing everyone they do not like to Hitler. Silly people.

As for Greenspan he seems to think that the Bush administration is spending too much money. On the other hand the left thinks he spends too little. In fact there is talk he might veto some spending bills. In any event the idea that the administration might actually allow politics to set an economic agenda is not a shocker or shouldn't be. What else is Hillary's universal health care and Edwards's two Americas about if not politics?

But who cares about Greenspan? The old guy is history as they say.

The point to Ed's post is AlQaida and its murderous ways. You a fan of theirs too? I noticed you were a lot more interested in going after Bush than you were in saying anything bad about AlQaida. Why is that? Are you simpatico with AQ or just a coward who feels that picking on Bush on line is a whole lot safer than going after the kind of people who bake children?

JohnH says: The Iraq war was started over non-existent WMD... NOT to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.

Iraq had NOT A THING to do with 9/11.

Most Iraqis support attacks on Americans
*************************************
Since both the Clintons and Al Gore thought Saddam had WMD, I am confident that you feel none of them is qualified to be president.

There is Al Queda there now and I am glad they are getting beaten.

We did not attack Iraq over 9/11

Yes some Iraqis attacked us, some welcomed us but then when I first got my cat he used to scratch me, then he got to know me better and now we are buds. No grudges held. Now that we have moved into the Sunni communities to provide protection of the locals, the Sunnis are having a better chance to know both us and Al Queda and a similar result is developing. No grudges held.

I don't know that much about Hillary, Right4TheRight.

But I do know about this President's "leadership" record after six years gone by and on record.

If Hillary is elected and is proven incompetent as this President has so very clearly been, I and 60% or so of us that see President Bush as a poor leader will be the first to vote her out.

See, that's the difference when a person is not Ideologically blind... clear judgment.

But maybe it's a biological trait... who knows.

All military’s throughout the world are experiencing upgrades that bring force with less manpower, but that trend has been most profoundly notable within the US military and for very good reasons, as follows:

I disagree and think the US experience in Iraq only proves that the Powell Doctrine remains valid. Rummy's little experiment didn't work out so well- the sacking of Baghdad- by its own people- and destruction of most government facilties was an ominous sign that US troop levels needed to be much higher.

If the surge has been successful, why shouldn't it be put in place across Iraq? The answer is that it can't be because the most powerful country in the world can't come up with 400k troops to make it happen.

Can lefties read? They post on line so they must have some understanding of the language. So why don't they just go read the Congressional Resolution giving the President authority to go into Iraq? The reasons are all there.

As for wmd, where are they? We know the programs were there. We know the Clinton administration as well as foreign governments were sure they were there. It would seem to me that if people want to yell at someone about bad intel they should be talking to the UN and the Clinton administration.

And Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama back in the 90's. The Clinton administration mentioned a connection between Saddam and AlQaida in the 1998 indictments brought against the terrorists after the African embassy bombings. They know Saddam gave them money.

They also know Saddam allowed Zarqawi to come to Iraq from Afghanistan to set up a terrorist camp. He harbored terrorists like Nidal and Abbas and Yasin..not to mention his support of Palestinian suicide bombings. Zarqawi was AlQaida.

They also know that Saddam had turned a UN humanitarian program into his own slush fund. He had tried to kill a president. And he had broken the cease fire agreement. Not to mention the fact that he was hiding weapons programs which would have been reactivated as soon as he was turned loose.

In spite of all this the left just keeps yammering the same old crap over and over about how simple Bush is and there were no weapons. Blah blah blah.

I don't think Bush is the one who is simple.

KW64, Let me use some logic on ya.

The Clintons and Al Gore did not launch a large scale military operation into Iraq, President Bush did.

So are you saying that if the "Clintons and Al Gore" invade Iraq over non-existent WMD you would have supported them... up to where we are now?

Second, Al-Qaeda is not a country, or a singular entity that is susceptible to large scale military operations... you must know that.

Would you spend another $1O,OOO,OOO,OOO a month in the dozen or so other countries that have Al-Qaeda?

Example, how about Somalia... what to go back?

Iraq is a DEVERSION from fighting Al-Qaeda.

"No grudges held"... yeah right, like THAT phrase is part of ME culture.

At what point do you think the Iraq Sunnis will be able to not have a grudge against Israel?

The elephant in the room is that were Israel's best friend... think Iraqi Muslims with ever forget that?

Man, that was TOO easy... next please.

Here is a link to the Resolution itself.

This just in - Emir Who's Your Baghdaddy has just proclaimed himself the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Eric, while I agree with you that today's military, here, and in Israel, are the best trained. And, the "least in danger" when out on patrols ...

I still think the "draft" will gain in importance, ahead; because our system of educating kids went to hell.

How long will the public allow the continuation of failed schools to keep on going?

And, why is the draft a solution? Because too many middle-class kids have grown soft.

We will have a choice. Either to train our kids better, as they're growing up.

Or to eventually settle on a "moderate" draft program; where kids can opt for the military; instead of porn-college. Where they are strapped with unnecessary debt.

In other words? The future hasn't been defined, as yet. But we're gonna get there.

And, it's NOT a system women will use, as much as men; because women will opt out to have children. Meaning they'd get the least benefits from careers enhanced by military service.

Again, this is not here NOW.

But I think it's gonna be in our future. SOME HOW.

Why? Because academia crapped out.

And, if I've learned anything about business; when your competitors fail; new stuff arrives to fill the shelves.

Oh, I also think we're gonna be in irak for a long time. But not in battle mode. Heck, we're still in germany. STill in korea. Not in battle modes, though.

I also think the Bonkeys have been crazy to go so far left. They've left themselves no room, ahead. What are they gonna do? Advertise they want to come back to the center? Otherwise? It's Thelma and Louise. Gravity hurts.

America has had a great military tradition. And, it's always been sandwiched between the incompetents on the HILL. Following the Revolutionary War? Well, until we get to our 5th President, James Monroe; and the MONROE DOCTRINE, or military footprint wasn't felt.

Then? The clowns in congress, for about 20 years, diddled with the pus oozing from the slavery issue. And, they made things worse. That's why the senators who "went home" when Lincoln got elected, didn't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, the Civil War was brutal. But it gave us General Grant. And, it changed West Point.

Here's what I mean. When WW1 rolled around, General Grant's battlefield topics were taught at West Point. Picking up the baton: PERSHING.

Under Pershing's wing, during WW1: Douglas MacArthur.

We've had brilliant battlefield commanders.

And, yes. Stinkers, too.

Truman proved a 2nd rate president could harm a 1st rate commander. But guess what? It's truman's reputation that has been eclipsed.

Second raters come and go.

Did our military suffer? Yes. For decades. But they went back to the basics. Yes, sans the draft. And, they function very, very well.

Sure, we had Wesley Clark, a brass polisher if there ever was one. So what? We now see Petraeus. And, we can only guess how the military is accommodating it's lessons, now.

Evil won't leave the stage.

While in the "worst case scenario" people can think of, they think Hillary shoe's in ... Like Hsu on the lamb. And, becomes president.

Now, how long would that last?

Nixon made it in on landslides.

Hillary? She's got to steal it. (And, we're not talking "steal" like in baseball.)

How long before the fury erupts?

You think Code Pink is an eruption? Perhaps, in a lunatic asylum. But definitely not the real thing.

While, yes, I do expect the Bonkeys to maneuver their ad campaigns to look a tad more "central." Straight from casting.

Won't help, though, if Hillary wins. The lady will have to live with what would follow. And, that's not pretty. (Nor do I think we have to worry, now. Because the future hasn't taken place.)

Just the options being discussed, that's all.

Re: Bayam and his call for 400k soldiers to surge nationwide:

You do not have enough Iraqi troops to hold a nationwide surge. We surged to clear areas. But you only clear areas as you have Iraqi security ready to hold them. Otherwise, as you move our troops to the next target, Al Queda will come back and kill the people who helped us.

Just be patient. As the Iraqi army grows, we will clear additional areas. When local militias switch over to our side we can speed the process but since we will not stay in Iraq forever, we have to wait for the Iraqis that will stay to be ready to do the job before the clearing process expands.

For all those who spent the 90s either in a coma, a drunken stupor or grade school, a little blast from the past:

Striking a similar tone on November 10 at the Pentagon, Vice President Gore stated that "Saddam has taken steps that interfere with the ability of the inspection team to carry out its mission." He added, "The procedure chosen to deal with this situation is to engage him in discussions in which he can be made aware that this is not a smart thing for him to do, and he ought to change his mind."5

But Saddam remained defiant. So on Friday, November 14, President Clinton and his top advisors met at the White House and decided to launch a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq.

"Prepare the Country for War"

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7

On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."8

"The War of Words Grows; U.S.: Poisons Are World Threat" headlined the New York Daily News Monday morning.9 CBS News said the White House had begun "a new tack, warning in the darkest possible terms of the damage which Saddam Hussein could inflict with his chemical and biological weapons."10 And in "America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."11

This message was echoed in a series of remarks President Clinton delivered the same week.

"I say this not to frighten you"

In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."12

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."

That link did not work. This should be the right one. There is a lot more there about Clinton warning America about Saddam and his weapons and the terrorists. Etc.

nahncee -- Seamlessly? Have you seen this crap? I can produce better with a hundred buck multimedia camera and the MovieMaker in my $400 laptop...

The President gave out cherry picked intel in order to sell his product.

Now he's repackage it as "Return to Sender" or whatever ridiculous PR slogan he's using for the moment.

If ___________ (insert name of lefty here) had invaded Iraq then, they need to be drummed out of leadership too.

If ___________ (insert name of lefty here) had invaded Iraq, would you support the war also?

"Reich-wing"

"Bush is Hitler"

"Bush is stupid."

"Dear Leader"

"Conservatives stifle dissent."

How many more utterly witless clichés can "progressives" stuff into one thread? The most depressing aspect of this era is the uniformity of thought and expression on the left side of the political aisle.

It's not a coincidence that there's been a raft of zombie movies in the last six years. Half the country is behaving like the living dead, shuffling through life and croaking out the same exhausted complaints, slogans, and catch phrases over and over.

I can't imagine allowing my mind to slip into stasis just because I didn't like the president.

Looking over this thread, the conservatives all have their own voice, but the "progressive" comments all seem to have been written by the same person.

"Let us in. We are the dead. Bush is Hitler. No al Qaeda in Iraq. Chicken hawks. Bush lied. Guhhhhhhhhhh..."

John H:

A diversion my behind. That is not the boy scouts they are fighting in Iraq, it is AlQaida, to say we are being diverted from fighting AlQaida by fighting AlQaida is stupid.

And we went into Afghanistan as part of NATO, that is one of those multinational efforts we have been hearing for years that we need to be a part of. Now all of a sudden Obama is talking about invading Pakistan.

Terrye, I have to agree Bush is simple, simple in that shock and awe, the last throws, wanted dead or alive, these mantras of Manicheanisms had little real affect on the post fall of Saddam. The regime was changed and the White House failed miserably at selling the country just what exactly our mission was to accomplish next. Please post any links you might have that substantiates your claim that Zarqawi was supported by Saddam. This good vs evil Bullshit is ok for movies, but when people's resources are being squandered senselessly someone has to be at the helm to tell people why and why and why in more than cowboy authoritarian terms. Id' have no problem with supporting a post Saddam plan if we'd been told what are expectations would be. The trust us bullshit only goes so far. We changed the regime and then got ourselves involved in the middle of a civil war. Also using your logic if Al-Qualude was the main reason to go after Saddam why haven't we gone into Pakistan, Indonesia, The Philippines? Just because the Congress supported removing Saddam by force doesn't mean there didn't have to be a plan afterwards for premtively invading a Sovereign nation.

John says:
Man, that was TOO easy... next please.

Eric:
Is it too easy to make bad points? Next time make it more difficult on yourself by taking time to be correct.

If Clinton had invaded Iraq (as he should have,) I would have supported him. If Clinton has stayed and fought in Somalia (as he should have,) I would have supported him.

Do we want to go back to Somalia? Sure, I'm game. Let's go.

At what point will Iraq give up the grudge on Israel? When it becomes a democracy that has strength, like South Korea and Japan.

Do I think Muslims will ever get along with Israel? They better or we’re going to kill every one of them until they decide to see things our way. It’s just that simple.

That was TOO TOO easy.

Tom W:

Cherry picked? Where were you people a decade ago for Chrisake?

I can remember back in 1998 when the Clinton administration bombed Iraq, General Zinni made sure that the troops in Kuwait had so many shots they got sick. Why? well because he was afraid that Saddam would try to use his biologicals on them. Things like Anthrax. Do you remember that? Is everyone on the Democratic side of the aisle suffering from sort of bizarre amnesia or something? I remember in 2000 when Zinni told Congress that the greatest threat facing America was Iraq.

Now we hear about cherry picking. Hell in 1999 ABC did a special on Saddam and Osama. No one was blowing off about cherry picking then.

Terrye: The point to Ed's post is AlQaida and its murderous ways. You a fan of theirs too? I noticed you were a lot more interested in going after Bush than you were in saying anything bad about AlQaida. Why is that? Are you simpatico with AQ or just a coward who feels that picking on Bush on line is a whole lot safer than going after the kind of people who bake children?

I think that lefty posts make the answer to this question pretty clear: they are simpatico with AQ. You know the old saying: the enemy (AQ) of my enemy (Bush) is my friend.

Incidentally, some of the posts (such as by David) are why I got so furious with the left: they are so trapped in their Bush hatred and nursing old grievances that they can't see why we need to win in Iraq. Indeed, BECAUSE they can't get over their old grievances (they can't move on, to coin a phrase), they want America to lose. This attitude sickens me beyond words.

Now, as to the original topic...

Yes, AQ is getting increasingly desperate. Insurgency / counterinsurgency at its root is a battle for the hearts and minds of the populace. AQ is realizing that they can't win this fight: even devout Muslims among the Iraqi population are not thrilled with AQ's murderous attempts to create a 7th century caliphate. So, like the vengeful trolls that they are, they try to destroy what they can't have.

Hmmm... Another reason that the left in America is simpatico with AQ: they have the same childish mindset.

Noocyte;

For your further reading, may I suggest LTC Robin Cook's "The Advisor", MAJ Andrew Krepinevich's "The Army and Vietnam", and Lewis Sorley's "The Forgotten War"?

I would also like to offer one of the most pithy explanations of how to conduct successful COIN that I've ever read. In the words of The Bard:

... for when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner.

The Life of King Henry V (Act III, scene 6)

Tom says:
Looking over this thread, the conservatives all have their own voice, but the "progressive" comments all seem to have been written by the same person.

Eric says:
I think it's along those lines. It's more than one, but I do believe that they are on a payroll. Scripts are in use.

Since David seems stuck on the question about whether or not we'd support the war if a filthy democrat was in charge:

Yes. The troops are in the field. There is no substitute for victory no matter who is in the White House.

Next stupid question.

flyman:

Zarqawi went to Iraq from Afghanistan, he was treated in a hospital and allowed to leave there and sit up a camp in Iraq.

Kind of like the Taliban let Osama sit up a camp in Afghanistan.

I guess your point is we should have let Zarqawi train and kill whoever he wanted.

I like the way lefties play this little game. For instance, Saddam gives Zawhiri $300,000. But golly gee AlQaida might have used that money to redecorate a cave or something so we can't actually call that operational ties.

So unless and until we can find video of Zarqawi and Saddam planning attacks together we are just going to have to assume that Saddam was an innocent bystander and the poor little dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people was just helpless to deal with the Z man. Poor Saddam, so mistreated and abused by the big bad Bushies.

BTW Saddam gave sanctuary to Yasin, the one terrorist involved in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. 60 Minutes actually did an interview with him. He disappeared after the invasion.

Tom W:

Cherry picked? Where were you people a decade ago for Chrisake?

Eric says:
Tom, a decade ago, they were 10. These are college students working part-time jobs. (I'm a scientist...I'm a Lawyer...I'm a Doctor...)

That should be that Yasin was the one terrorist involved in the attack on the WTC in 1993 who escaped justice. And he escaped it by going to Baghdad.

And yes doc, they are simpatico, that is how hateful they are.

And yes I would support a Democratic president who went after these extremists. In fact I am an Independent.

That should be that Yasin was the one terrorist involved in the attack on the WTC in 1993 who escaped justice. And he escaped it by going to Baghdad.

And yes doc, they are simpatico, that is how hateful they are.

And yes I would support a Democratic president who went after these extremists. In fact I am an Independent.

One can count on leftists to claim there is no al Qaeda in Iraq until the day the last one is killed. Of course if we deployed to Okinawa could we be sure they wouldn't follow us there? The leftist dilemma is how to convince the public they want to fight al Qaeda even as they want to run from al Qaeda.

And John H, if you don't understand the strategic difference between being chased out of a country(an oil rich one at that) by al Qaeda and not invading every country where they have a presence then I don't think any of us can help you.

Iraqis of all stripes have declared war on al Qaeda and vice versa -and you want to walk away from that fight so you can fight them somewhere else? Where? No doubt if we do leave prematurely they would follow us back to Afghanistan. But how many leftists, salivating over defeat in Iraq, have even looked that far ahead?

America will not be diverted from victory over al Qaeda in Iraq - especially by people who claim fighting al Qaeda is a diversion from fighting al Qaeda. You can only convince so many people that black is white and up is down.

Wow, is it just my imagination, or have there been more squirrels here in the past few days ever since the Dems in Congress made total fools of themselves?

Dave's Not Here said:

"The President gave out cherry picked intel in order to sell his product."

Totally false. The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation, released in July of 2004, said that simply wasn't true.

In addition, the committee concluded that intelligence analysts were not pressured to change or tailor their views to support arguments for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think it's important to know that the intelligence they gave was under their judgment --the right perception," said Sen. John Corzine, D-N.J.

And remember, at the time, a Clinton holdover was still in charge of US "intelligence".

Some other observations:

1. As others have noted here, the previous Administration also accused Iraq of having WMDs, and in fact Mrs. Bill Clinton said at the time she voted for the war authorization that she based her decision partially on briefings she got from former Clinton officials.

2. Clinton's own Justice Department, in 1998, unsealed their Federal indictment against bin Laden. One of the very first things they said he was guilty of was having a working relationship with Iraq.

3. The only "government official" to have claimed a direct link between Iraq and 9/11 was a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in Manhattan, who ruled in 2003 that such a link existed. Bush never claimed such a link himself.

My point had 2 parts. One the notion that Saddam had ties to Al-Qualude was a weak at best. Why does this matter, well because the threat to our national security sounds much graver if you have a laundry list of tenuous assertions to help support the already mediocre and failed assertions that were originally used IE mobile weapons labs, WMD's, and aluminum tubes for Nuclear weapons. Which leads me to my next part, why if you're so sure that we don't need concrete "little game" connections then why don't we go into Indonesia, Pakistan and Syria, Lebanon and the Philippines?

When I make that accusation that we’re dealing with college students working part-time jobs, I’m referring to the very few that think they will make a salient liberal point and convince us to hate Bush and the war.

I mean think about it. Would any of you go to a liberal BLOG and start making statements to change their opinion? You would have to pay me to do that because it’s a futile effort. I guess you might do it if you were crazy…

From the Weekly Standard's article on George Tenet's book:

Tenet offers little real evidence to support his contention. But

it is worth noting what he does not claim: that the Bush administration cooked up the connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda in its entirety. In fact, Tenet concedes that there was evidence of a worrisome relationship. For example, Tenet explains that in late 2002 and early 2003:

There was more than enough evidence to give us real concern about Iraq and al-Qa'ida; there was plenty of smoke, maybe even some fire: Ansar al-Islam [note: Tenet refers to Ansar al-Islam by its initials "AI" in several places]; Zarqawi; Kurmal; the arrests in Europe; the murder of American USAID officer Lawrence Foley, in Amman, at the hands of Zarqawi's associates; and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad operatives in Baghdad.

On Ansar al-Islam, Zarqawi, and Kurmal, Tenet elaborates further:

The intelligence told us that senior al-Qa'ida leaders and the Iraqis had discussed safe haven in Iraq. Most of the public discussion thus far has focused on Zarqawi's arrival in Baghdad under an assumed name in May of 2002, allegedly to receive medical treatment. Zarqawi, whom we termed a "senior associate and collaborator" of al-Qa'ida at the time, supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam (AI).

We believed that up to two hundred al-Qa'ida fighters began to relocate there in camps after the Afghan campaign began in the fall of 2001. The camps enhanced Zarqawi's reach beyond the Middle East. One of the camps run by AI, known as Kurmal, engaged in production and training in the use of low-level poisons such as cyanide. We had intelligence telling us that Zarqawi's men had tested these poisons on animals and, in at least one case, on one of their own associates. They laughed about how well it worked. Our efforts to track activities emanating from Kurmal resulted in the arrest of nearly one hundred Zarqawi operatives in Western Europe planning to use poisons in operations.

I forgot to add the link to the above.

John H wrote:
The Clintons and Al Gore did not launch a large scale military operation into Iraq, President Bush did.
What they did with the information does not change the fact as to what they said and thought. They did sanction the hell out of Iraq because of WMDs and various other transgressions, they did maintain no fly zones,they did pass the Iraqi Liberation act because of the exact same rationale. ANd the UN did pass not one, but 17 resolutions against Iraq based on the exact same rationale. And the last one was passed unanmiously by every country in the security council based on the exact same rationale. So explain to us John how Clinton and Gore were not wagging the dog and comitting genocide against Iraqis in their bombings and excessive sanctions against iraq. And explain how if all this is untrue the UN is any more trustworthy since they not only went along with said resolutions and sanctions but also set up the Oil for Food program, who's apparent sole purpose was to line various countries pockets and to get cheap oil for said countries.
Also, explain to us, since Bush came into office right after Clinton where it became clear historically that iraq in fact no longer had weapons. Considering also of course that Iraqi liberation act, which called for regime change and democracy in Iraq, occured in 1998 and around that time Bill clinton had the following to say:
"(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act."

Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Or take a look at this handy timeline that highlights the various incidents that occured under Clintons watch:
Disarmament cirsis timeline
also look up Operation Desert Fox where Clinton ordered 4 day bombing campaign to degrdade Iraq's WMD Capability. And also note that shortly thereafter all inspectors left Iraq and weren't allowed back in until the eve of the current war.
So show us that lightbulb moment JH where all the players from the UN to the Clintons all came to the realization that Iraq had no WMD's and bush lied. Because its confusing to those who
followed the history to actually see where that transition occured.
Also, one reason why Clinton did't go to war and Bush did is because Bush followed Clinton on the timeline and Bush saw that containment and resolution after resolution did not in fact solve the problem of Iraq. He had the hindsight seeing all that clinton and the UN had done not resolve the problem,and knew that doing more of the same would not produce the desired results but only produce more of the same,which was unacceptable.

JohnH also wrote:
There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.
How is this one even relevant? Al Qaeda didn't attack us till we stationed troops in SA because Clinton and co. needed to contain Iraq. So you could argue that containment itself led to 9/11. Right there is a link between 9/11 and Iraq. But if we do invade Iraq and Al Qaeda decides to attack us there,how is it a legitimate argument that somehow its not linked. If al qaeda feels there's a linkage and attacks us, then by extension its linked to our overall fight. You see, the enemy is able to determine, as well as us, what battles are relevant,and whether what we do is relevant to their overall war against us. It's kind of hard to argue that Iraq has nothing to do with al qaeda when every time Osama releases a tape he says that al qaeda is fighting us there. The anti war crowd makes a distinction between al qaeda and al qaeda in Iraq. Why though? Is a cell in Hamburg part of AlQaeda or is al qaeda only the people living in the caves in afghanistan/Pakistan. Because of course the left wants to have it both ways here too. They always say that Iraq is a diversion from the real war against al qaeda, and even go so far as to suggest that Al Qaeda in iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror or even Al Qaeda in general.

Yet at every turn the left cites(cherry picks) the NIE to say that our action in Iraq increased the terrorist threat around the world. Of course, why single out Iraq here. What about our attack in afghanistan. Is not a single terrorist around the world inspired to ight us because we are also occupying afghanistan. Were we to heed osama and sent troops into Pakistan to find osama would that not also increase terrorism around the world?
Butmore importantly, are those cells that form in say Hamburg,or Spain that we are supposedly adding to and which the left keeps highlighting as due to our actions, are they part of Al Qaeda or part of the war on terror in general? What if they don't have direct dealings with Osama bin Laden or haven't met him directly.Should Bush still be held accountable for them? are they part of the war on terror? If they are, then you can't argue that a group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq is somehow not involved,especially consideringthey call themselves AL QAEDA IN IRAQ, and have received direct support from Zawahiri and bin Laden.

The point fly man is flyman if Saddam Hussein had just done what he agreed to do when he signed that cease fire agreement all those years ago he would still be running Iraq. But the lefties will blame everyone but Saddam for Saddam's fate. They will blame everyone but the man responsible.

Saddam was supposed to cut out the ties with any international terrorists. He was supposed to cooperate with the weapons inspectors. He was supposed to stop killing and terrorizing his own population. He was not supposed to shoot at our planes. We screwed around with this madman for years before George Bush ever left Texas. If there were so many nonviolent ways to deal with him, why didn't they? Why was it even a subject for discussion in 2001?

jr:

In fact back in the 90's when Osama started talking about war against America he used those bases in Saudi Arabia and the sanctions and no fly zones against Iraq in his fatwa against the US.

My point is that if all the evidence, thanks for the Weekly Standard review of GT's book, if it's true still doesn't answer my question. If we had all this substantiated ties Between Al-Qualude and Iraq, Saddam by proxy and activities being orchestrated inside the country, why don't we invade The Philippines, Indonesia, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Saudi Arabia? If there were no wmd's only plans being made by harbored terrorists, wouldn't that preclude an attack on any of the countries I listed above? Doesn't it naturally follow that after we removed saddam that his vacuum would be replaced by Al-Qualude? Well why are we fighting Shia and Sunni militias that are opposed to Al-Qualude? Where the hell was the plan to deal with all of this if it was soooo obvious that Al-Qualude and saddam were connected? Really if it was that easy to align saddam and Al-Qualude why do they want to kill the Shia and the sunnis?

flyman:

Are you dense?

It is as if lefties have itsy bitsy brains and can only hold so much information at a time.

Tell me if the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor why did we end up fighting in Belgium?

Anyway, if you had bothered to read all that together with the actual resolution that Congress votes on you would realize that the US was actually enforcing a UN force resolution, not a general resolution, one of those by any means necessary resolutions.

In other words, the Phillipines did not fire at our planes or break a cease fire agreement. Indonesia was not under sanctions from the UN. Lebanon had not tried to kill an American president. And the list goes on. The fact that you are completely unaware of the history between the US and Iraq and the UN leads me to believe you are not well informed enough to carry on an intelligent conversation about the subject.

There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.
How is this one even relevant?

Leftists are of course arguing politics not whether it is strategically necessary to stay in Iraq and drive al Qaeda out.

And they give no thought to the impact of this argument on their vaunted claims to being morally superior. If there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before American went in, given that al Qaeda is attempting to slaughter Iraqis wholesale doesn't America have a moral duty to stay and drive al Qaeda out?

No, of course not. They would rather pretend that al Qaeda will leave when we do.

I have never argued against the regime change. I have argued that the logic or lack there of for a comprehensive plan post disposal of Saddam, other than name calling, IE: AOE, and and subsequent squelching of parallel situations doesn't ad up. I am honestly shocked and in awe of how utterly incompetent this administration has been at displaying anything other than theatrics and a pension for resource abuse regarding this endeavor of battling terrorism. I firmly believe that the narrative for selling the American people on the necessity to commit this obscene level of national treasure has been dubious at best. Instead of asking if WE are safer why don't we ask the Iraqi's if our liberation was worth it. I think you might find a few of them in Jordan. Poor planning folks, the administration brought it upon themselves. THEMSELVES. My gripe is with uneven application of underlying premises and poor communication with the funders. This is enough to warrant a change in government. My lack of conviction and lazy apathy towards influencing my legislators to see this as folly are just as much to blame as the other side's blind comfort and support.

DEVERSION , as some lefty would spell it. Good picture of what the current commander in chief is doing?
Maybe, maybe not but President Bush has been successful in exposing AlQueada to the world as the murdering savages they are.
Successful in enlisting moderate Muslims to help exterminate them.
Successful in defeating the Taliban in Afgahnistan, getting Libya to give up nukes. Bringing N.Korea into 6 way talks and under enormous pressure.
If ya think he might let Iran have nukes or depend on Hitlery to stop them think again. We have Iran surrounded. Afgahanistan on one side Iraq on the other and ships at sea.
Before he leaves office I'm bettin Iran gives em up or loses em. One way or the other problem solved.
Brilliant strategy on the way to success.

Imagine AlQaida able to exercise control over any of Iraq's oil wealth. Imagine a man like Saddam able to bring the world's economy to ruin on a whim.

No, the left is more worried about Exxon.

From Bill Clinton, November 15, 1998:

The world spoke with one voice. Iraq must accept once and for all that the only path forward is complete compliance with its obligations to the world.

Until we see complete compliance, we will remain vigilant, we will keep up the pressure, we will be ready to act.

This crisis also demonstrates, unfortunately once again, that Saddam Hussein remains an impediment to the well being of his people and a threat to the peace of his region and the security of the world.

We will continue to contain the threat that he poses by working for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability under UNSCOM. Enforcing the sanctions of the no-fly zone. Responding firmly to any Iraqi provocations.
.............

However, over the long term, the best way to address that threat is through a government in Baghdad, a new government that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them, that is committed to peace in the region.

Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a Radio Free Iraq throughout the country.

We will intensify that effort, working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act, which was recently passed, strengthening our political support to make sure the opposition, or to do what we can to make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraq people.

Let me say again, what we want and what we will work for is a government in Iraq that represents and respects its people, not represses them. And one committed to live in peace with its neighbors.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between tyranny and freedom, between chaos and community, between fear and hope.

In this case, as so often in the past, the reason America can make this difference is the patriotism and professionalism of our military.

Once again, its strength, its readiness, its capacity, is advancing America's interests in the cause of world peace.

We must remain vigilant, strong and ready, here and wherever our interests and values are at stake. Thanks to our military we will be able to do so.

Terrye, look, all the examples of why you thought it was necessary to connect Saddam to Al-Qualude and thus use it as a component for disposing of Saddam are really for not, if you are not willing to apply them to other sovereign nations. Please remove your supporting excuse that Saddam harborded Terrorists as a legitimate excuse for invading Iraq. YOU are inconsistent with your logic. You can't use the connections and surrounding circumstances as legitimate rationale if you discount the application regarding others guilty of the same behavior.

flyman:

What a crock. If anyone on the left had any bright ideas for actually turning Iraq into a stable democracy it got lost in all the Bush lied people died crap.

Tell me, is there some Occupation for Dummies book out there that the Bushies should have followed? Is there some easy competent plan that would have made deposing the Butcher of Baghdad a piece of cake if only Bush was competent?

What plan? The one where the Democrats supported the war before they did not support it? I have not heard one single comprehensive plan from critics that would have worked any better.

For instance people say that we should have put more Baathists in the government or shot the looters. Well, how do you know that more Baathists would not have created more problems with the Shia and exactly how would the Iraqi people or the world have responded to troops firing on civilians, looters or not?

No, it is easy to sit back on your butt when you do not have to be responsible for running anything but your mouth and yammering about how incompetent someone else has been, but from what I have seen of the left they are in no position to preach common sense or tactics.

BTW, the military assault on Iraq was the most successful in history. That is just a fact.

flyman:

That is so stupid. It really is.

Have you even bothered to read the resolution authorizing support for the use of the military?

What do you think about Bosnia? Should we have intervened there?

Unless you are willing to intervene in Iraq based on Saddam's abuse of his citizens you have no business going after the Serbs.

We could do this all day.

BTW, we have leant the Phillipine military a great deal of support. But then again their government is not in violation of 17 Resolutions.

But I get your argument. If we are not willing to invade dozens of countries to fight AlQaida then we should abandon Iraq to AlQaida right now.

Arguing with a lefty is like watching a puppy chase its tail.

flyman wrote:
all the examples of why you thought it was necessary to connect Saddam to Al-Qualude and thus use it as a component for disposing of Saddam are really for not, if you are not willing to apply them to other sovereign nations.
How many other nations had we been at war with and agreed to a cease fire under certain terms which it violated for more than a decade, had the UN pass 17 resolutions agasint for violating terms, was listed as one of the top 3 or 4 terrorist states, had been bombed repeatedly,had sanctions placed against them, had no fly zones set up to police them and even had a resolution passed agaisnt them calling for a regime change as far back as 1998, etc etc etc etc?
You seem to be under the impression that Iraq just became an issue and a threat when Bush took office, whereas prior to that they were simply a kite flying utopia. WHy don't you read some history?
In 1998 Clinton, and all the democrats,save perhaps Kucinic, passed the Iraqi Liberation act with the support of nearly all republicans which called for a regime change as well as a plan to assist Iraq towards a democratic govt. Because EVERYONE who was at all serious recognized the threat of Iraq and that Sadaam was the true threat, and nothing would be resolved till his regime was gone. THis was in 1998, and this was under a democratic president. ANd this in fact was US policy. Now you might question the reasons for war, but these are the exact same reasons that a democratic president sought fit to pass legislation calling for a regime change. Bush did not create the bogeyman of Iraq as a threat to the US.

Don't give me that what plan did the Democrats have Bullshit. So leadership defaults to the opposition in time of colossal fuck ups?Which party's leader has been in charge of the White House for 6 years during this whole debacle. The GOP. If the President agreed with the Congress so much why did he have soooo many signing statements? How utterly disingenuous to think that the Democrats had anything to do with this debacle other than compliance by nature of sheer numbers. Why all of a sudden does the right become the ultimate critics the second they loose control? Just like immigration, as soon as the Democrats gained control then we hear all of a sudden about what really should be done. Bullshit. He's YOUR Dear Leader. You step up to the plate and accept the fact that you have blindly partnered with disaster.

flyman wrote:
all the examples of why you thought it was necessary to connect Saddam to Al-Qualude and thus use it as a component for disposing of Saddam are really for not, if you are not willing to apply them to other sovereign nations.
How many other nations had we been at war with and agreed to a cease fire under certain terms which it violated for more than a decade, had the UN pass 17 resolutions agasint for violating terms, was listed as one of the top 3 or 4 terrorist states, had been bombed repeatedly,had sanctions placed against them, had no fly zones set up to police them and even had a resolution passed agaisnt them calling for a regime change as far back as 1998, etc etc etc etc?
You seem to be under the impression that Iraq just became an issue and a threat when Bush took office, whereas prior to that they were simply a kite flying utopia. WHy don't you read some history?
In 1998 Clinton, and all the democrats,save perhaps Kucinic, passed the Iraqi Liberation act with the support of nearly all republicans which called for a regime change as well as a plan to assist Iraq towards a democratic govt. Because EVERYONE who was at all serious recognized the threat of Iraq and that Sadaam was the true threat, and nothing would be resolved till his regime was gone. THis was in 1998, and this was under a democratic president. ANd this in fact was US policy. Now you might question the reasons for war, but these are the exact same reasons that a democratic president sought fit to pass legislation calling for a regime change. Bush did not create the bogeyman of Iraq as a threat to the US. THere's a long history here, and this history makes it more imperative to deal with as a threat.

(Sorry for the boldingin the previous post).

from bill clinton:
think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."
Some clever conservatives wll compile a commercial containing absolutely nothing but Clinton quotes about not only the threat that Iraq posed but also the significance of the threat of iraq. And play it as an opposition add to Hillarys campaign.
Maybe she could call Clinton a liar.

I have never said, and previously stated above that we should not have disposed saddam. My arguments have been about the sheer incompetence of the administration to thoroughly accept the responsibility of the after affects of his removal. I also question the excuses used as a rationale for deposing him not being applied to other countries. Look if we don't care about how much money and human resources we expend in Iraq to remedy a major threat to our national security then why aren't you as supporters of this administration demanding these same standards being applied elsewhere?

When the final chapters are written on this war on terror I'm reasonably certain that the grand plan was taking out Iran.

If that is actually (it should be) the main objective then invading Iraq was a must. Setting up a killing field between Syria and Iraq is standard military tactics given the topography of the area. With bases in Afghanistan and supply routes through Kuwait and our carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf it's all tactics 101. Israel covers Syria for us and the rest is pretty rudimentary. We don't even need Turkey.

As a bonus we get to remove Saddam and his thugocracy taking pressure off of Kuwait and indirectly Israel. Was he making or storing wmds? It's all a moot talking point once he's dead. To date the strategy has cost billions and 3800 dead soldiers. By war standards it has been a rousing success. However it is all for naught if we don't take out Iran and Syria.

Civilians always argue about the political minutiae and miss the big military picture. However some deference has to be paid to the body politic because they control the purse and heart strings. Hence Bush et al giving speeches, stops at the UN etc. But under no circumstances will they help map out strategy or prevent it. Knowing this, that's why Pelosi and Reid bang their heads against the wall. My guess is if Bush thinks Hillary may win the election he'll attack Iran before he leaves office. If Rudy is in a clear lead he'll probably let him do it extending the time line to see if Iran collapses from within--not totally out of the question but its a race between the people in the streets and the "bomb" makers.

One way or another Iran and Syria are going down. Then Iraq will be seen for what it was intended for. Another perk--Iraqis are free of Saddam and they ultimately can sink or swim as a country. We will hold them together until Iran falls. Then we are leaving. Last but not least Hamas and Hezbollah will wilt away and die with no funding. There will be a new Palestinian state--who will run it? I have no idea. But it won't be Hamas.

It is not bullshit flyman.

You are going on and on about what a screw up the other guy is and yet you do not have a better idea.

You and your friends are like some back seat driver who never learned to drive, but just has to tell everyone else how to do it.

Fine, so give me an example of a mistake free, easy, clean nonviolent overthrow of a government and rebuilding of a society.

Just jump right in there with something other than impossible demands and double standards.

flyman,
what your side can't escape from is the past. Not the distant past but the previous administration and their actions vis a vis Iraq.
You say:
How utterly disingenuous to think that the Democrats had anything to do with this debacle other than compliance by nature of sheer numbers.
Except they voted to give Bush authority to remove Iraq. ANd they gave Clinton authority to bomb Iraq and sanction Iraq and even went as far as to make into US policy regime change for Iraq, as well as the idea that we would assist Iraq in moving towards democracy. They were on board when their guy was in charge and they gave approval when Bush was in charge.
They had no problem in signing on baord, and neither did the UN in containing Iraq for a decade, in sanctioning Iraq (killilng all those Iraqi children) and saying everytime a microphone was placed in front of their face that Sadaam was a threat that had to be dealt with. Its only when Bush actually removes Sadaam and goes through with the policy and we start suffering casualties that they disown their involvement. Not only do they disown their involvement, they pretend that they never dealt with Iraq prior to Bush and that he "tricked them". Please ignore everything said and done prior to Bush (and even in many cases during the current Bush admin (For example, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton,all of whom were running for president at the time who all not only signed on for the war but said that it was justified).
Selective amnesia is not a great quality when looking for leadership,and it doesn't work too well for lefty rhetoric either.

patrick:

I think we may keep a base in Iraq for sometime. It might be in the north and it will not be huge. Time will tell, but if we still have troops in Europe, Japan and Korea and Kuwait I doubt that we will pull out of Iraq entirely.

But time will tell.

flyman:

If the Democrats had resolved the issue with Saddam before George Bush became president it would not be a topic of discussion. But they did not, why? Well because they said he was a threat to the region and the US and for that matter the whole damn world. They said he had the wmd, etc. It was the Democrats who were in control of the executive for the previous 8 years.

He said she said/assumed.

John H 1) The Iraq war was started over non-existent WMD... NOT to fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Eric
1) By Congress. War is always declared by Congress. All of the current Democratic Candidates with the exception of Obama and Denise voted for the war.

You moved the goalpost miles away.

John H
2) There WAS NO Al-Qaeda in Iraq until we got there.
Eric
2) It was called the Bath party then.

Clever but misleading. They never called themselves that or supported AQ before OIF. There are now Ba’th party associates in AQI because in June 2003, the US-led invasion forces in Iraq banned the Ba'th party from the new government, as well as from public schools and colleges. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

John H

3) Iraq had NOT A THING to do with 9/11.

Eric
3) Yes, I think that they in fact did.>

The Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

And in March 2006, Bush said I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein… I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

John H

4) Most Iraqis support attacks on Americans.

Eric
4) Really, I just spoke with most Iraqis last week and they said they thought you're a poo-poo head.

September 10, 2007
The survey for the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified.

RE: Clinton admin claims about Iraq.
He was wagging the dog then and I didn’t believe him as did the republicans.

Zarqawi supervised camps in northern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam

First off, al-Qaeda doesn't seem to get it that their videos are treated like jokes.

Secondly, with stuff like "there is no God but Allah and al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah" coming from al Jazeera, these guys look like the world's biggest losers (after the Palestinians who are the world's biggest losers).

The only biological trait Dave should have maintained is his birthname before he joined CAIR. Abdul the Appeaser. Son of a muslim who was a former cartoonist, but now goes by the name 'Lefty'...

The answer to Flyman's questions about invading other countries: The Philippines, Indonesia, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Saudi Arabia

Lebanon -- Israel will take care of it.

Syria -- Israel will take care of it.

The Phillipines -- with our assistance, the Phillipinos are taking care of it.

Indonesia -- Actually, the Indonesians have contained things on their own to some degree.

Somalia -- We will see if the Somalisna and Ethiopians can take care of it.

Pakistan -- We will let the Pakistani government deal with it but will give help if they ask. We might conduct some targeted attacks at HVT's but invasion is a last resort that we are not close to yet.

Sudan -- If we get a UN force to protect Darfur, that may be enough. The Sudanese Government is not going to support terror camps for groupd that target us because they are easy for us to get at.

Saudi Arabia -- Are you kidding? They are fighting Al Quaeda not supporting it. Some of their citizens may support it but the Government is threatened by it.

We have allies, an International Coalition if you will who recognize that AQ is a threat to them. Some people have trouble telling friend from foe. but if you can judge someone by their enemies, the Administration doesn't look bad.
But the Administrt

Wait a sec. Hold the horses.

You think every sunni arab has Alzheimer's?

You think those in Irak had a different take on Saddam Hussein's "march into Kuwait?"

At least we know that Saddam "took Kuwait," and then? Well, the race was on. We didn't have bases in Saudi Arabia.

Heck, Bendar had to go and speak to George Bush (the First), right after Saddam "marched." And, King Fahd, was warry of American bluster. (He had been fooled by Jimmy Carter. Who wasn't?)

But if you could recall; and you had the facts, you might have remembered, that when Iran lost its Shah, Jimmy the NINCOMPOOP, blustered; and told Fahd, that to protect Saudi Arabia; he sent 15 jets.

Sure. He did so. He then announced, while the jets were flying over; that THEY WERE NOT ARMED.

Okay. So they don't teach this stuff in history books.

And, for all we know the sunnis are illiterates. Doesn't mean they DON'T KNOW CURRENT EVENTS! Doesn't mean they're without ideas. Because? Well, say the name of the Shah of Iran; and you don't even have to produce a single photograph.

It's called "knowing."

ANd, then, knowing that to "TAKE KUWAIT" Saddam didn't need his army. He could'a done it with a posse. That's how easy it was.

However, after that; things got tough for Saddam.

Not totally. We held back our fire when the "republican guard," and tens of thousands of others, did a common practice for arab fighters. We didn't kill them when they were running away.

Sure. Tough to explain. But then Bush the Elder was a diplomat. He pants-danced better than he did "military."

And, still. Inside Irak, till this very day; the sunnis "remember."

Then, among ALL the lessons; there's one. When America comes in at the tail end of a heist; they can kick ass.

The A-Q? You call them ass kickers? They're terrorists.

And, now they are terrorists on the run.

Sure. They can toss off a bombing.

Just like in America, on a lonely night, creeps can creep in and desecrate nearly all of the Vietnam Memorial. WIth gunk you can't clean up.

What do you make of those deeds?

What do you make of cowards who deface cemetary stones? Heck, even when they tattoo the swastika-ka on themselves. What do you really think?

Because you're not looking at an army, when you look at a pierced nut job. Sometimes, you'll even go so far as to spot someone as mentally ill. And, you're not carrying a medical license, either.

So there's stuff going on in Irak, now;

Separate from the hostile acts being done by congress critters; who'd be so much better off, if truth be told, and they could come to work wearing prom dresses. The men, that is. The women? Anything that covers the wide hips are fine. And, pants, as a matter of fact, give you fabric between your legs; which reduces the rashes from the friction of sparks being set off ... when legs get together, as you walk. "Wide Stance" Larry, ain't the only guy in congress who needs to keep his feet spread, if you get my gist.

The sunnis had to absorb stuff. And, for today's lesson, let me mention that during Gulf War #1; they learned, soon enough, they wouldn't be in charge of Kuwait's oil fields. NADA.

Today, the prize is much smaller.

Even you if account for stupidity; it doesn't quite count when arabs, who know a little bit about business; figure out their odds.

I appreciate the engagement and do not take it personally. Thanks to Ed for providing this forum for our discussion. I would like to suggest a book that a friend of mine loaned me and it makes this forum quite the gem of luxury..
"Putin's Russia, Life in a Failing Democracy"
Anna Politkovskaya
You will not put it down.

fly-man/bong boy
Look if we don't care about how much money and human resources we expend in Iraq to remedy a major threat to our national security then why aren't you as supporters of this administration demanding these same standards being applied elsewhere?

Eric:
I for one am in favor of moving this beyond Iraq, starting with Iran if they fail to shape up. We backed North Korea down last year, peacefully -- always the best first option.

I am always amazed at the Left saying that we on the Right crush dissent. I travel some, throughout the west and southwest of the country, mostly, where the internment camps for the Japanese were. I have visited some of them. Those camps, brought to us by a Democrat mind you, are empty. Dissent flows through the Right, Rudy is okay with abortion and pro gun control, Fred is against gun control but doesn't have a lot to say about abortion, and on and on. Ron Paul disagrees with everything. We may vote against them in the Primaries but we don't cast them out.

The Left sure does love them some Joe Liebermann, or wait, he disagreed, cast him OUT!

Just who stifles dissent?

Ya know, "invade" isn't exactly the correct term to use; when looking at the map and noticing trouble-spots.

Syria didn't get "invaded," recently. All you know is that there was something in the syrian desert ... could'a been WMD's. Could'a been for building nukes.

Doesn't matter. There was no "invasion." But there's an area, now, flat as a pancake that definitely cannot produce nukes. And, has no ammunition to send to Hez'bullies. That's just the way it goes.

The flight in? About six minutes.

The rest's a secret.

Were there troops on the ground? Okay, for that you have to look at gazoo. A small group of "special ops" forces; dressed as grocers; and meanandering in on the farm land of the "genius" that put together Shalit's kidnapping; got to mosey up to the perp. And, then? I'd guess in less than 6 seconds; it was mostly "all over."

But there was a route out. By helicopter.

And, if you think there aren't lots of guns in gazoo, you'd be wrong.

And, the "mastermind" wasn't just out on his lot, looking for a place to pee. He's constantly surrounded by armed guards. Who did not suspect the "grocers" ... traveling by donkey.

SO, there you are. CURRENT on two separate ... INVASIONS" ... to the tune of the Bumble Bees.

Maybe, all we need are some revolving doors?

Maybe, all we need to do is realize we can't send our troops out to mend the world.

Where Eric recommends the dead journalist's articles about putin, I've got news for ya. Can't fix it. The russians never really did get anything better. From da Czars; who got killed when other bad guys came in ... they ended up with Stalin. How many millions did he kill?

And, when innocent civilians die by the millions, how can you claim the goverment is in charge of much, except stealing for profits?

There's one detail worth mentioning. John McWorter, who studies languages; wrote a most interesting book. He tells how the world's language base is shrinking. Where once, about 3,000 languages were in use by locals; has now all been reduced to 40 major tongues.

The computer is, in fact, shrinking the language pool. And,making translations "accessible." In time this will make a difference. And, the leading languages won't be arabic, or russian. But probably English. Which even the Chinese speak, quite well.

That's how ideas flow. And, actually, how up ahead, things will change.

Irak might look like a throwback to the stone age; but they have electricity. And, to get it dependently delivered, lots of people have generators. ANd, refrigeration.

We like to think of people being really, really backwards. But the world's been changed by 20th Century inventions in ways that now may the 19th Century look positively "different."

Up ahead an "invasion" of Iran? I doubt it.

But then, again, in the military, we do train troops to do "special ops." And, you wouldn't even recognize these soldiers.

Just like the Israelis, they can disguise themselves as local yokels. And, not get caught out.

Were there troops of this sort in syria? I've read that this is true. Just following a few Israeli sources.

Iran's not free of "intelligence gatherers." Even if you think our military doesn't have any; you don't know the Israelis! Don't get fooled. The Israelis are not victims.

ahh but eric, if the battle rattle bunch hadn't gone through the worlds 4th or 5th, or 6th largest army (you know the one that knocked heads with the iranians who had the 4th or 5th, or 6th largest army for what? eight years) in about a month then a lot of the knotheads wouldn't be quite so willing to talk turkey.

of course things like the "highway of death" where, what was it 3, usaf aircraft killed all of those people and burned their loot in an afternoon might have just had an affect on their attitude.

teddy roosevelt had it right when he said talk softly and carry a big stick. of course it really helps if you knock a few noggins to demonstrate the heft of the stick.

and teddy had his problems with congress too. he sent the fleet out to impress the wogs and talk to the spanish and congress wouldn't pay for it. so he sent them anyway. the battleships ran out of coal in south america and finally congress cut loose with the money to pay for it.

thats why we were the phillipines protectorate for so long and why phillipinos join the navy in such large numbers and convert to american citizenship.

C

Cheech n' Chong said

"I have never said, and previously stated above that we should not have disposed saddam"

English major, I see.

Okay. Now here's the real WAR STORY, on Israel's foray into syria's "flank." Watch the pieces come together. YOu bet, I'm betting on Bush "planning ahead," as well.

From The Sunday Times
September 16, 2007
Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’
Secret raid on Korean shipment
Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv, Sarah Baxter in Washington and Michael Sheridan

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”
Related Links

* A tale of two dictatorships: The links between North Korea and Syria

The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.

Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.

Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.

But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?

Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?

According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.

The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.

“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”

An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.

The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.

According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.

Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.

Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.

Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.

At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.

Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know � Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.

Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.

But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.

Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.

There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.

“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.

Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.

On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.

Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria � the area of the Israeli strike.

The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.

But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.

Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.

By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.

As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.

Glad to see you finally got in Carol....

Your posts are so much fun!

And full of historical perspective ...

DelDemnted, Please send me your address and I will gladly refund all of your money you have paid to participate in this conversation.
I'm sorry to have offended your literary sensibilities.

Gee, Nedra Lee, thanks.

By the way, it seems I clipped the above article one sentnece too soon.

It's the one where I see how connective the Israeli raid is. I guess "raid" is a better word than "war," huh. Because I don't think bush will "go to war" with Iran.

Anyway, here's that one last line. Which makes everything ahead look full of possibilities.

----------------------------------------------

This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.

Hindsight is 20/20 and armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but perhaps the brilliance of the Iraq invasion was that the Alqueada types were forced to show their hands and the Iraqis' had to get tired enough of it to do something about it.
Kind of like the Dems and their better ideas, redeploys, smarter wars B.S. They had to get elected to show the country their real plan was to cut and run, surrender faster than a Frenchman, wave the white flag and ask if they could just go home now.
Terrye you reminded me during the Clintoon era everything that was anything was a crisis. Thats' how they got things done this crisis that crisis.
Different regime in town now quietly gittin-er- done
I don't know what form it will take or who exactly will do it but I'm bettin W. doesn't leave Iran for the next guy especially if it looks like Hitlery. We've got boots on the ground to stop any invasion of Iraq or Afgahnistan when the time comes. Maybe it will be internal special forces and dissidents with a couple thousand strategically placed bombs thrown in, but Isreal will probably handle Syria, Hezbully and Hamas and the carrier groups will handle the AmaOsmaDingDongs and Mullogracy

fly man/bong boy said:

"DelDemnted, Please send me your address and I will gladly refund all of your money you have paid to participate in this conversation.
I'm sorry to have offended your literary sensibilities."

Uh, gee whiz, you seemed to be "smart" enough to quote-or more likely you just cut and pasted-the name "Anna Politkovskaya", and yet you couldn't even find and use the correct word for "deposed"?

Please pay attention.

Actually, dHunter, the Bonkey view is much more virulent.

Yes, part of the attacks on Bush has to do with the "slow down," and the lack of better military planning. But if you think about it; Tommy Franks sat in Floriduh. What were the post Saddam plans?

Starting with the fact that Chalabi and Allawi had American backing; where we picked people the Iraqis don't like.

And, then? We trained Chalabi's goons.

Oh, and the House of Saud wanted to grow from 20% of the world's oil reserves; to gobbling up Iraq; which would give them 40%.

It's on the mistakes that we're not digging out of the hole.

While that becomes, I think, the bigger worry for the Bonkeys.

In 2004? They thought they'd make Bush a one-termer. Instead? The old-timer Dan Rather bounced out of his anchor chair. And, the candidate John Kerry couln't get elected. Even with the fact still well-hidden that he had a DISHONERABLE discharge, back in 1972.

Coverups? Don't work.

SO, lessons are still being "taught."

While the Bonkeys are absolutely terrified that they're actually behind. And, the republicans aren't quite as defeated as you think.

Yes, congress sits on this minor majority; but nowhere in site is 60%. If you can't carry the senate with 60%, you can't override the president.

And, we're years into this farce, now.

As to the Bonkeys, ahead, the only way they're gonna improve their showing is to steal what they can in 2008. Innept thievery, however, may come off as innept. And, then what?

Americans just sit back?

While over in Israel, when Arik Sharon had his stroke, that was, indeed, catastrophic. But the country is doing well. And, Omert seems to stand there as the dude you're trying to dunk at the carnival. But it's harmless. He's holding tight on his government's reins. The horse ain't galloping away.

In politics "pacing is everything."

While Bush just decided to name someone else, and not Ted Olsen. So it seems he's not looking to let congress take over with a spitball fight. Does it make a difference? Going in now to Justice, what sort of prize is that? The next president gets to pick a whole other team. Mates.

All we can do is watch.

Seems the Israelis just took care of business. Seems Assad lost "something" in the desert. Though it's hard to say. Who would be at the front, reporting?

The way the news slipped out was almost as if the "fly in" was a mistake. And, then? Some ground movements. Around the Golan Heights, where Barak actually moved some IDF troops "away." To lower the flames that were exciting Assad. While, fer shur, Assad knows the truth, NOW. The "dinner-jacket" guy, having sent in his nephew to access the damage ... isn't this like the insurance ajuster? We will never know what got lost though. Or how much it cost. Or even how many years went into building what got busted.

All you do know, though, is that it wasn't an accidental dropping of a fuel tank. It was bigger than tat.

With silence, now, in DC, you'd think it was covered in a layer of snow.

Good luck to ya, if you think you can guess Bush's hand. Or if you think you know what happens next.

All I figured out was that while Petraeus was in DC; and then he's heading for England, first ... Whatever stuff could come up next, won't happen until Petraeus decides it's time to push a couple of buttons.

Whew. I'm just glad Colin Powell is nowhere near the chain of command. And, that Bush will do his best to make his last year in office "interesting."

Which is why the Bonkeys went nuts. If they don't trash Bush, what else is there? Co-ed toilets? They come out and address the important issues of our day by suggesting all would be cured if we just dropped doors off toilet stalls?

Walking around DC seems to cause men to walk with a particularly wide stance. If you want to believe in bullshit, that's where you'd go.

Chimpy says

"RE: Clinton admin claims about Iraq.
He was wagging the dog then and I didn’t believe him"

1. Why was he wagging the dog? You're admitting that Clinton was a bigger liar than Bush is. I'm shocked!

2. Clinton's own Justice Department said that Iraq and al Qaeda were in bed. They even said that in their 1998 indictment, which you can find at the anti-Bush Federation of American Scientists Website.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

3. To my knowledge, the only "Federal official" ever claiming a 9/11 and Iraq tie was a Clinton-appointed US Judge in Manhattan, who ruled in 2003 based on the evidence that a jury would find that Iraq participated in 9/11.

Bush himself never claimed an Iraq/9-11 connection,which makes the Clinton-appointed Judge's opinion even more interesting.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm

DocJim505:
"For your further reading, may I suggest LTC Robin Cook's "The Advisor", MAJ Andrew Krepinevich's "The Army and Vietnam", and Lewis Sorley's "The Forgotten War"?"

First two wishlisted, with thanks. Couldn't find the last, but Sorley is a prolific dude. Did you mean "A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam"? Seems like it fits within the content domain we are discussing (some of us, anyway ;-) )

Noocyte,

Ooops! You're right: the title of Sorley's book IS "A Better War". Should have looked it up rather than rely on my memory.

Bong Boy - you might want to make a mental note that when one starts making word plays on people's names (i.e., DelDemnted) it acts as an immediate red flag that you're a moonbat. Another example would be the General Betray-Us ad that has worked so very well for MoveOn.org to gain support for your cause.

You see, what you're doing by writing something like this is name-calling. You may think you're demonstrating erudition or cleverness or wit, but bottom line, it's kindergarten name-calling and the reason you're doing it is because you gots no factoids nor the wherewithal to look up some to back up your arguments.

In other words, when you write something like calling someone "DelDemnted" then that tells me that you're an immature ignorant doofus who can be safely skimmed over because you are guaranteed to be useless. And pathetic if you weren't such a sponge on the rest of society.

Posted by bayam | September 15, 2007 12:44 PM

"This all makes we wonder why no one on the right is willing to stand up and make a strong case for re-instating the draft. I don't know if I would support that policy myself, but it's a position that should be taken and an argument worth making- especially if you believe in the surge strategy."

The youth of American don't have the physical, moral, or mental basis to be worthwhile soldiers. Their starting level is too abysmally low.

The draft would be the equivalent of feeding sand, salt and sugar into a running engine.

Gee, Looking Glass.

Wow.

Elitist much?

I was on active duty to watch the transition from the draft to the modern high tech all volunteer force.

First, draftees are short term help and they have an attitude. In WWII, when we went from 1.4 million in 1941 to 8.3 million in 1945 weapons were less complex. Today, conscripts may be fine admin clerks or personnel troops, but in a highly skilled job, by the time they're up to speed, you're looking for a replacement.

Second, the threat has changed. Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone but we still have enemies in the world. Smaller, lighter, air mobile forces are all the rage. Surveillance, communications and precision guidance have revolutionized weapons, reduced footprint and altered tactics, but at some point, we must be able to take and hold territory.

Third, Congress reorganized the DoD after the Vietnam War to prevent the President from engaging in a long duration conflict without mobilizing the Guard and Reserves.

All three of these issues need to be addressed pubicly and resolved. I oppose a draft but believe we should increase end strength. We should not eliminate the ability to engage a large conventional force, but a sustained land war might need to go nuke early. The Guard & Reserves need to be just that - back up manpower - non-essential to small scale war fighting.

If the dems are so worried about our military being overstretched (yeah, like I believe THAT), then why are they not beating on their members of Congress to increase funding for the military? Why aren't democrats like the Hilldabeast, Trashcan, The Swimmer, SanFran Nan, and Dingy pressing the DoD to add active duty divisions to the Army and Marines (you know: reactivate some of the divisions that were mothballed by Slick Willie when he and Congress were blowing the "peace dividend" in the '90s)?

This whole draft nonsense is just another liberal strawman. "See! See! Conservatives don't want a draft! That means that they don't take the war seriously! That means we can surrender tomorrow!"

Nauseating...

Actually, Hillary has proposed an increase in end strength of 60,000 bodies. The DoD opposes it because they want to pay for new weapons with reduced (or current) end strength. My gut feel is that we need an active force of about 2.1 million, 500k more than we have now.

A draft? Not the answer at all. And adding more bodies simply to increase numbers is not the answer either.

By the end of 2010 there will be three divisions in the Army if current trends can be believed. The 82nd, the 10th Mountain and the 1st Cav. Corps structure will change as Army structure has changed, both will fall by the wayside as operational formations. The emphasis will be on specialized brigades that can operate independently or in conjunction seamlessly. For this sort of military we need educated and trainable people. A draft works against this.

Likewise an increase in special operations forces has been ongoing for the past several years. Special ops and independent brigades each have a roll. It is not about sheer manpower, it is about combat effectiveness and combat multipliers, and seamless interaction. A few teams of special operators can take on tasks once relegated to battalions or battalion combat teams, with a lost less manpower and a lot more effectiveness.

Independent brigades have a closer tooth-to-tail ratio and require less manpower and logisitcs, and cen be dispatched more readily than the Army/Coprs force that was deployed over a period of 7 months prior to the Gulf War. The age of mass tank formations and sprawling mechanized infatnry is over.

Funding for weapons systems often takes precedence over funding for more personnel. Why is that?

The Army just confirmed the first combat kill from a remote vehicle over Iraq, armed with a forty-pound missile, fired from command vehicle a hundred miles away. The cost of using this system in terms of money and manpower is a nice force multipler to have on the shelf. There are a good number of other systems on the shelf, drawing board, or deployed that are doing the same job as a armored cav squadron with a lot less personnel and a lot less danger to those personnel. Effective rather than great big clumps of live targets for an enemy to shoot at? Seems an easy choice.

A draft? No way. A draft even if not as a rough hewn as the draft that got me in uniform the first time, would place too much effort on training (mental and physical) of reluctant servicemembers and rob the coffers of funds, time, personnel and effort that could be applied better elsewhere.

NahnCee helpfully explains: "Bong Boy - you might want to make a mental note that when one starts making word plays on people's names (i.e., DelDemnted) it acts as an immediate red flag that you're a moonbat. Another example would be the General Betray-Us ad that has worked so very well for MoveOn.org to gain support for your cause.
"

So, all those poeple who use terms like "Al Bore", "BJ Klintoon" and "Hildabeast"... they're really MOONBATS!

Well, no wonder I find them so offensive. I'm not all that fond of moonbats.

As I said, I oppose a draft, but I think we need more people on active duty.

Look at Iraq, for example. We just surged 20,000 troops into the country so that we could seize enemy sanctuaries and hold them until the situation is stable and local security forces are ready to fill our role. By next Summer, we will be forced to draw down due to manpower limitations.

If we have a shooting war with Iran by then, what do we do?

NahnCee, thanks for the advise. That was my first infraction, and as a matter of fact , I was resoinding to this:
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 15, 2007 8:24 PM
Cheech n' Chong said

"I have never said, and previously stated above that we should not have disposed saddam"

English major, I see.
So along with my grammatical errors I will promise you that when I come here to comment I will be a civilized as possible. Sincerely, Sorry, Bong Boy, aka Cheech and Chong.

Just kidding, I know, I should have used advice, the noun.....

xpmojhrnq gctyavl vjilhykt ryeucsfl ekxn xbjkueatv qdwtg