Will this be the "Big Bang" September disclosure on Iraqi Weapons?

Great Debates
81

“And while I know you want to portray yourself as an Oracle of wisdom, you were quite wrong about many things as well”
I have never portrayed myself as any such thing but I would like to know the “many things” I got wrong. For instance I had specifically stated before the war that I didn’t expect the conventional part of the war to be very difficult.

In any case identifying different risk factors is not the same as predicting all of them will happen. Smoking increases the risk of heart attack, lung cancer , kidney failure etc. This doesn’t that all these things will happen. If you “only” get lung cancer without a kidney failure, it doesn’t mean smoking was a wise choice. What has gone wrong in Iraq is easily bad enough to discredit the decision to go to war.

. “Define success as attaining a goal that hasn’t been achieved, and then declare it a total failure”
Please. It’s been almost five months since the fall of Baghdad. There is obviously an active Baathist resistance. There have been plenty of reports of the borders being insecure and of key weapons sites being looted. The fact is that if the weapons do exist they have probably been moved long ago. Even if the US does find a few WMD here and there (highly unlikely at this stage) there is no way of knowing what has happened to the bulk of whatever WMD Iraq may have possessed.

The WMD were the central justification for the war. “Disarming Iraq” was the stated objective of the war. Either the US has failed in this objective or there were no weapons to disarm Iraq of in the first place.

“The U.S. can now put pressure on Syria and Iran”
Name any significant benefit from this “pressure”. A while back I posted a Seymour Hersh article which stated that the war had destroyed the valuable intelligence relationship between the US and Syria post 9-11. Syria had been one of the best source of intelligence about Al-quaeda but no more. What possible benefit has the war brought which compensates for this?

As for the “autonomous base” it’s all but useless. US troops in Iraq are bogged down providing (or failing to provide) security in Iraq. They are not in a position to put military pressure on anyone else. And do you seriously think any future Iraqi government will allow the US to launch a war on another Muslim country from Iraq?

82

Member of ‘the left’ chiming in here. I still hold Rumsfeld to task for this, though not for the reasons presented here. While I objected to the war and still do, once the decision to go forward with it had been made, it should have been done with overwhelming force giving the commanders on the ground everything they requested, in other words the “Powell Doctrine.” The problem isn’t that they should have waited for the 4th Infantry Division, the division should have been diverted to Kuwait in time to take part in the initial invasion rather than having all of its vehicles and supplies dickering around in the Mediterranean waiting to see if Turkey would give the green light. The forces initially sent in were sufficient to dramatically win the conventional phase of the war, but the forces that have been required to generally secure and stabilize the country are much larger than the initial force. They should have been included in the initial force. Had they been, the scale of the looting would have been dramatically less, which would have made reconstruction that much easier. A larger initial force may also have reduced the scope and scale of the post-conventional war guerilla action.

But Rumsfeld felt the need to use a small force in order to prove his Revolution in Military Affairs.

83

And the 4th industry would have stopped the looting… How? The 4th is a heavy mechanized infantry. What was needed was military police.

84

Is that to be the way, then? America the sheriff, the Worlds Foremost Authority? By the moral superiority granted by force of arms? Because there isn’t any other, certainly the UN has not pinned a tin star to our chest. God Almighty hasn’t said anything to me about it. Did he consult with you?

Are we born again, then? A cleansing, a sudden miracle, and the oldest whore on the block is virgo intacta? Suddenly we have the moral clarity and the virtue to determine what shall be, and what shall not. The names Trujillo, Batista, Samoza, Pinochet, Duvalier, Syngman Rhee, Diem, Pahlavi…all gone, poof! Statute of limitations run out and none of these instances of American support for bloody tyrants matter anymore, we have forgiven ourselves, we are pure, we are the unsullied palladins of Liberty!

So what would otherwise be naked aggression, when performed by the just and the wise, this is liberation. It is good we have these things settled and defined, as other nations, who lack our wisdom and probity, might be confused as to thier proper place in the New World Order.

That, of course, could prove troublesome. Don’t you think?

85

No, what was needed, and in fact was sent, are more asses in the grass. In an ideal world, they would have been either military police or troops trained in peacekeeping, but both are in short supply in the US Army in comparison to their needs. If you take a look at the forces currently deployed in Iraq, you will see large combat elements that were not involved in the initial invasion. The 4th Infantry Division (Mech) is only one of them. The entire 1st Armored Division, elements of the 1st Infantry Divison (Mech), and the entirety of the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiments are among them. The US is planning on rotating in National Guard Brigades come next spring. This is my other objection to the war – the US army is now heavily deployed overseas, to the point that 73% of the active duty maneuver brigades and 1/3 of the National Guard enhanced battalions are deployed overseas. One is left to hope that additional deployments are not required, and that other international concerns, like, say, North Korea, do not require heavy lifting by the US Army.

Are you seriously suggesting that having another 12,000+ combat troops in armored vehicles patrolling the streets of Baghdad would not have had an impact on the scale of the looting? The problem was that there weren’t enough troops at hand to do this.

86

And that matters really how? The war/occupation (a single entity, really) is still going on, and will do so for some time. The level of troops required is pretty well agreed now to be far more than we have. The situation now is what we feared would happen. A fair person would acknowledge that, and not falsely claim either that (1) the war is over, or (2) the anti-war position wasn’t based primarily on what would happen after Saddam’s ouster, or (3) the ouster wasn’t pretty much guaranteed anyway. But the power of revisionist history is strong.

87

Sorry, Milum but you’re missing the point. All the stuff you listet here (which I removed from the quote to make things a little shorter) happened after the invasion or were a direct result of the upcoming invasion. So how can you use them as a justification for the war?
“We had to go after Saddam because he is going to blow up the UN building once we are in Bagdad!” :smack:

88

O’ I don’t know** T. Mehr**, call it an overview. I call my listings “concept groupings”, a shortcut method to help intelligent people realize a rare moment of “Ah Ha!”. But it seems that many people here are mostly linear in their thinking so its off to the library for me.

See you tomorrow.

89

Ah Ha!

Ha…

Ha?

Dammit, lost the moment.
For just a second I wasn’t thinking linear. I really lost cause and effect reasoning.

Wow, this is how you think all of the time?

90

**Ah Ha! Milum **
Call me linear thinking when I try to think in the chronological order in which things happened. While your “concept groupings” seems to include a great deal of prophecy.

Good night to you also.

91

Sam Stone, forgive me but my head is spinning.
It’s supposed to be better if it’s ex-military killing our boys? How, exactly?
Please read this and explain to me how that’s supposed to be better:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12096-2003Sep1.html

A choice quote:

This is a good thing?

92

You forgot to include the obvious choice:

____(e) Grim fallout from the American invasion.

The UN mission had been in Baghdad since the end of GWI with nary an incident. Thus a linear thinker such as myself has no reason to assume the bombing would have taken place had circumstances remained the same.

93

Sure thing ** RedFury**, and if Columbus hadn’t sailed the Atlantic the world would have no country with the balls to free the oppressed.

Remember this?

The Telegraph UK April 17, 2003

MORE TIES BETWEEN SADDAM AND TERRORISM
This one was with a Ugandan terrorist group:

Saddam Hussein’s regime was linked to an African Islamist terrorist group, according to intelligence papers seen by The Telegraph. The documents provide the first hard evidence of ties between Iraq and religious terrorism.
Secret dossiers detailing the group’s discussions with the Iraqi Intelligence Service were found in the spies’ Baghdad headquarters, among the detritus of shredding.

The papers show how Iraq’s charge d’affaires in Nairobi, Fallah Hassan Al Rubdie, was in discussion with the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan guerrilla group with ties to other anti-western Islamist organisations.

As the story makes clear, the group aimed to use Saddam’s support to practice terrorism on a worldwide scale. All of which makes me rather glad we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and serves to help make clear that the hawks were right in this debate.

** And this?**

The Council on Foriegn Relations April 29 2003

What kind of support has Iraq given terrorists?

Safe haven, training, and financial support. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:

—> Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.

—> Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.

—> Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.

—> Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI’s “most wanted terrorists“ list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.

** And uh…this?**

The Comunist Party of Iraq, July 19 2003

We expose and defeat the Islamic terrorism and condemn the attack of the Italian police on our party’s office in Al-Nasryia

As we announced earlier, on 16th of July an Islamic terrorist band belong to Baqir Al-sadr under the name of Al-hawza Al-elmyia, attacked the office of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq in Al-Nasryia and as a result of that a severe conflict came about, and consequently they were forced to retreat. Later, whilst the party’s office was closed at the weekend, they broke into the office after breaking the front door despicably and set fire to the possession of the office and took up position at the office. On 20th of July we were able to get the band out of the office and we re-established it. Today, 21st of July this terrorist band with more armed forces and support of the Higher Islamic Council (HCIRI) and groups of reactionary tribes attacked our office again and more extreme conflict came about. In a filthy plan they kidnapped four members of our party and tortured them savagely.in an abortive attempt. After the incident the Italian police been appointed to control Al-Nasryia city within the allied forces raided our party’s office, arrested and took all our comrades at the office and they have not been released up untill now.

These Islamic terrorist bands wherever they gained a foothold all their actions and out puts were terrorism, crimes, violating political freedom, basic civil rights, and blindly antagonizing modernism, humanity, women’s right and human respect. On the other hand, whilst the US and its allies have rendered all the world to battleground of deployment of their troops and militarism under the pretext of war on terrorism and under the imposition of their military rule in Iraq they have created a situation in which these bands been left free-handed for terrorism, kidnap, violating civil and political rights of people and women in particular. The attack on the communists, the only force who supports security, safety, freedom, and modernism, is an example in this respect.

:smack: __** Maybe I’d better go to the library after all.**

94

**

Say what? It is clearly not agreed by just about anybody in a position of power authority and knowledge with respect to the situation.

In fact, I can’t think of anybody in such a position who agrees.

Do you have any cites for any of the people actually commanding troops and handling tactics and logistics who is in agreement with what you say is “generally agreed?”

I would truly love to see them.

95

I’m in agreement on that aspect, Scylla.

Is there a magic number of U.S. troops that must be in place before the random bombings cease?

9/11 is next week. I’m going to pull my 6 & 8 year old boys out of school to race cars, at a racetrack in Dallas who are offering free rides for all firefighters and their families (my husband has been with the Dallas Fire Department for 11 years) - in honor of those who lost their lives that day. This is a very sad time of the year for me.

96

The public statements of military officers, especially in press briefings with SECDEF standing right beside them, isn’t very compelling evidence to me.

97

While this question was not directed at me, to make my own position clear: I would hold Rumsfeld to task for minimizing the initial forces were I to the left or the right. My position is to the left on this issue, at least. I was not, and am not in favor of US action in Iraq, though to leave now would be a mistake of the greatest magnitude. Now that the US is in, it must do its best to make things “right.” The force sent in initially was not up to the task of minimizing looting and (more or less) stabilizing the country; Rumsfeld and others made the mistake of not planning for the worst. While finding a generally accepted agreement of this appraisal isn’t likely to happen until the “definitive” history of the time is written, I hold by it nonetheless. I would think that the large numbers of US combat troops sent into Iraq after the invasion (already cited) would be a testament to this.

98

The Congressional Budget Office agrees with that assessment, over the long term. It seems that in order to maintain current levels of deployment, and a one year rotation, the US will need to find the equivalent of two new army divisions over the next two years. That’ll be expensive.

99

**

As someone who lived a scant 40 miles from ground zero on 9/11 – Stamford, CT – I will certainly never forget how I felt that day, like being hit with a sledgehammer upside the head, tears streaming down my face while watching the surreal scenes emanating from my picture tube. So yes, I think I not only understand your sadness, but share in it.

However, why, oh why, is 9/11 brought up time and again when discussing the Iraq invasion? Please don’t tell you’re part of the mind-bloggling 45% of Americans who thought Saddam had something to do with it?? Surely you realize by now that that was simply part of the Iraq-invasion marketing campaign? Because it was. There’s simply NO evidence tying the two together. What evidence there is, points exactly the opposite way – a strong dislike between Saddam’s secular regime and Al Queda’s fundamentalist dogma.

**

Yes, Milum, maybe you should – and stay there for a month or two. Because nothing you’ve shown points to any links between Al Quada and Iraq or justifies the invasion. Unless you’re suggesting the US invaded Iraq for Israel’s benefit. If that’s the case, you might be interested in learning the Saudis contribute much larger sums of money to the Intifada. Never mind the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from SA and none from Iraq.

I might also add that the US has ‘given shelter, trained and given financial support’ to numerous terrorist groups; Bin Laden included – 'cept they were labeled 'freedom fighters" at the time. So I suppose you wouldn’t object if the rest of the world invaded the US under the same lies, exaggerations and sloppy facts you’re using to justify the Iraq mess.

100

So Milum you’ve been to the library and present MORE TIES BETWEEN SADDAM AND TERRORISM. Unfortunately all cites are dated after the war started. Even if the deeds described partly happened before. So either the administration could somehow look into the future or it was a typical first shoot, then ask questions action.
The world over and over asked for proof against Saddam before the war. The US was not able to come up with any - just think of the pathetic appearance of Powell at the security council.
Now, after the invasion you are scrapping together what little evidence you got. This wouldn’t stand in any court!