Iraqis Say 271 Killed in Shiite Bombings
U.S. general points to Jordanian militant in bombings, cites link to former Iraqi intelligence.
is this validation of the authenticy of the “Zarqawi Memo”?
No it’s not. Without the presentation of new evidence, the General’s claim amounts to nothing but a repetition of the original claim.
Color me cynical, but we’ve seen a lot of this sort of stuff over the past year. If the general’s got a smoking gun, let him present it and for once we can decide an issue based on facts in evidence rather than hearsay or self-serving speculation.
Who knows?
Bet the idiots in the administration are wishing they hadn’t fucked this up as well:
The USA invaded a country based on lies and it now cannot maintain law and order as it said it would do and as it is its responsibility to do and yet someone is claiming the USA may be winning because someone wrote a letter saying he did not sleep well the night before. :rolleyes: How does that change the facts of what is actually happening in Iraq? The fact remains that anarchy and chaos reign in Iraq and that it was all caused by an invasion without any justification. You can call it an American victory if you like. I call it shameful;.
I would say that the threat of civil war is very real, as attested to both by this letter and the subsequent bombings.
It was interesting to read Collounsbury’s assessment of the bombings. He suggests that the British are doing better at winning the trust of the people than the Americans, who are apparently being blamed for the attacks.
Was this a letter intended for one reader or for a greater distribution? If it’s the former then I think it’s more believable. I can’t see how this sort of negativism from leader to rank & file would help their cause and it seems somewhat uncharacteristic. I’m a betting man and I’d give 3:1 that it’s real.
The whole thing sets my skepticism alarm off.
A memo? From the VP, Iraqi Marketing Dept. to the CEO, Al-Qeuda, Inc.? Why? What purpose would be served in such a document? Is there anything in that memo that ObL doesn’t already know? “Hey! Osama! There are Americans here, available for killing! Come on down!” This is news?
Are there people in Iraq who are in a position to gain from forging such a thing? Of course there are, our beloved Ahmed Chalabi for one, who no doubt still retains hopes of being installed as Maximum Leader by the US.
Further, we are talking about clandestine, sneaky, underground sorts of communications. The recipient must have some means of confirming that the “memo” is from whom it says it is. Otherwise, its worthless. What in this “memo” indicates that? And if ObL has a seperate channel to confirm the reliability of the “memo”, then he has a seperate channel to recieve the info in the first place, rendering the “memo” entirely pointless. Why risk interception unless…interception is the whole point of the excercise.
My guess? The “memo” is a plant, classic KGB-style disinformation. That it was received by the US as wholly authentic without a twinge of doubt is to be expected, it confirms a fantasy dearly beloved by our leadership.
A clandestine, underground network like Al Queda has means of communication. Why would we believe that recording a letter onto a CD, apparently not even encrypted, and entrusting it to a courier vulnerable to interception, would be a means to that end?
Well, that settles it then. ‘Militants’ don’t lie.
I didn’t say it settles anything. I don’t know if militants lie but I do know the US government does lie. A lot.
In any case, the letter is irrelevant to what is happening on the ground in Iraq which is a disaster. If an alleged letter from an alleged enemy claiming he had a bad day is all it takes to convince you that the USA can claim victory then . . . what can I say?
You can find declarations of the US government mentioning setbacks and problems and admitting things are not going as planned. Do you interpret them as an admission of defeat?
The War Nerd Weighs In On Iraq
Slightly dated as per this discussion, but let’s just say I trust his insights quite a bit more than anything from the pro-war side.
His last sentence sums it up:
If we can’t rely on American and British intelligence for the truth and we can’t rely on the Bush Administration for integrity, why put much stock in a letter supposedly found in a safe house?
I’m still looking at the percentage of women involved in forming the new government. That answers a lot of questions for me.
If it is an indication of such, how many years til we get done with this winning?
American troops are scheduled to be there indefinitely.
Why stop harassing the coalition troops and those who’re perceived to be US/Western puppets?
We could very well keep winning in Iraq for decades to come, just like the Israelis keep winning against the Palestinians.
And just like we won in South Korea?
Or Europe?
Or Okinawa? There are 27,000 U.S. soldiers there.
The U.S. maintained more than 50,000 soldiers in South Korea for almost fifty years. Tens of thousands in Europe.
I fully expect that there will be a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq indefinitely. Fifty years wouldn’t surprise me. And I see that as a GOOD thing. Having a significant military presence in a friendly country in the middle east is a huge strategic asset to the United States.
If the U.S. had a strategic purpose in maintaining 27,000 soldiers in Okinawa for 50 years, and 50,000 in South Korea, I would think that the most strategically important area of the world, the Middle East, rates at least as much attention. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 50,000-75,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq for the next decade.
This is not necessarily that expensive. Maintaining 50,000 men in permanent foreign bases in a friendly country is a lot less expensive than maintaining 50,000 men in an invasion with full military logistics required to supply them. The U.S. is drawing down a significant number of soldiers in Europe now, and threatening the same in South Korea. There are enough resources to maintain a new presence in Iraq.
The U.S. will ‘win’ in Iraq when and IF a functioning democracy is established and makes it through at least one full election cycle. That, plus a growing economy and an improving standard of living for Iraqis will be a powerful vindication of democracy in the middle east, and give Iraqis a reason to continue with it.
The U.S. will lose if there is a civil war, or if a democracy forms and is constantly assaulted by mobs every time an unpopular decision is made until it collapses, and if Iran meddles heavily in the country, leading to a fundamentalist uprising and another country like Iran.
To prevent that, the U.S. will need to maintain a strong military presence there for a long time. But they won’t be as visible or as vulnerable as they are now, because they will have turned over policing duties fully to the Iraqis.
You’re assuming that Iraq is, or will be, a “friendly country,” whatever that means. That’s some mighty big pile of chutzpah you have there.
Golly, you’re right. Stationing troops in friendly countries for the purpose of defending them from hostile nations is exactly like the occupation of Iraq!
Oh, come on. I just said that the U.S. will lose if Iraq turns into a radical theocracy or breaks down into civil war. Clearly, the U.S. would NOT be welcome there then, and all bets are off.
My point was that if Iraq continues on the road it is on today, that implies an ongoing U.S. military presence. I don’t see a time in the reasonable future where Iraq is functioning democracy and there are no U.S. soldiers on its soil. Okay?
No, occupying Iraq is like OCCUPYING those other countries, which the U.S. also did. For a lot longer than the U.S. will occupy Iraq, for that matter.
After the Iraqis take over, THEN it will be more analogous to the current situation in those other countries, albeit more dangerous. And if everything goes to hell, all bets are off.
Well, duh! :rolleyes:
For the record, Iraq would also loose in those instances, which is what matters, after all, if the USA “looses” it can pack and leave, but Iraqis will stay and suffer… still.
As for the bases on “friendly” territory, I´ve heard the same about Saudi Arabia, that didn´t really work out very well, did it? This bases would be the result of pressure on the new goverment, and whatever sort of endorsement from an Iraqi goverment would most probably not be a reflection of the peoples will, that sooner or later will lead to great unrest. Did I mention Saudi Arabia already?
Chalabi Torpedoes new Iraq Constitution.
If Iraq continues on the road it is on today, there’ll be no turnover of authority come the end of June, and the US will be left with it’s backside seriously exposed to the breeze.