The Stone Face Of Zarqawi

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

Rick, I'm not sure where you got that I was saying Saddam was a good dude.

But to use your example, ok, you're a guy who's wife was killed by Saddam, and you are living in Iraq right now. Your cousin is blown up with his family due to a roadside IED. Does the fact that Saddam is out of power completely erase any bad feelings you have now? No way right? Wouldn't you think "Holy fuck, we went from the frying pan to the fire here...dictator one time, now we're onto lawlessness in the streets...what really changed?" Isn't that the whole point with criticism of the situation? That innocent Iraqi's are still dying. Except now it's indiscrimanatory. (E.g. earlier you had to be a Kurd, a political opponent, a good looking girl that Uday wanted to get with, to get killed) Now you can just be Abdullah going down to the store to get this month's Economist Magazine and be turfed.

And I really do think you have to bring emotion into it, because the people getting killed and doing the killing are bringing emotion into it. These same people and their descendents will be the ones ostensibly running Iraq some day (as per current plans). Don't you think their experiences from these 3 years will determine their attitudes in the future towards the States? We just had a discussion on racism on this board in another thread and I think there was a great indicator of how people are emotionally conditioned to respond to something. Even if the causation was a long time ago.

"We are at war with terrorism"

Go back to the being an Iraqi example. You've lived your whole life in Baghdad, worked a job, been law abiding. Now you're living in the chaos of the city. Are you a terrorist? No. Wouldn't you think that any American who said "we are at war with terror" is a complete whack job? You'd be like, "What the fuck is this guy talking about war with terror? The only war we've seen is the war on the Iraqi people trying to live since Saddam got taken out and the US came in, and the Sunni went ape shit..."

What might seem like a war to you, is not a war to others. The people on the ground in Iraq don't see it that way.

Where I'm going with this is that I think that any good will that was initially gained from the removal of Saddam is being lost rapidly with the current situation in Iraq. As more innocent people die and the situation remains out of control, people will get pissed and their attitudes can change. What might have been perceived as a tangible, great accomplishment by most people is being completely lost day by day.

All you have to do is look at history to see how that can play out.

The US was a major booster and ally to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s. Once the Soviets left, the US took off as well and let the commanders in there duke it out. Net result. 4 years of civil war, and a hatred of the States and Russia, and the eventual coming of the Taliban because they brought order back. We know how that played out.

Jamie B, that's a good point about the clash of ego's going into Iraq. This is why when I win the lottery, I think I will just hire you as my official spokesperson. There will be lots of joints, good pay, and anytime people do ecstacy (Not me!) you can drive them around.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='236812' date='Mar 22 2006, 04:21 PM']Rick, I'm not sure where you got that I was saying Saddam was a good dude.

But to use your example, ok, you're a guy who's wife was killed by Saddam, and you are living in Iraq right now. Your cousin is blown up with his family due to a roadside IED. Does the fact that Saddam is out of power completely erase any bad feelings you have now? No way right? Wouldn't you think "Holy fuck, we went from the frying pan to the fire here...dictator one time, now we're onto lawlessness in the streets...what really changed?" Isn't that the whole point with criticism of the situation? That innocent Iraqi's are still dying. Except now it's indiscrimanatory. (E.g. earlier you had to be a Kurd, a political opponent, a good looking girl that Uday wanted to get with, to get killed) Now you can just be Abdullah going down to the store to get this month's Economist Magazine and be turfed.

And I really do think you have to bring emotion into it, because the people getting killed and doing the killing are bringing emotion into it. These same people and their descendents will be the ones ostensibly running Iraq some day (as per current plans). Don't you think their experiences from these 3 years will determine their attitudes in the future towards the States? We just had a discussion on racism on this board in another thread and I think there was a great indicator of how people are emotionally conditioned to respond to something. Even if the causation was a long time ago.

"We are at war with terrorism"

Go back to the being an Iraqi example. You've lived your whole life in Baghdad, worked a job, been law abiding. Now you're living in the chaos of the city. Are you a terrorist? No. Wouldn't you think that any American who said "we are at war with terror" is a complete whack job? You'd be like, "What the fuck is this guy talking about war with terror? The only war we've seen is the war on the Iraqi people trying to live since Saddam got taken out and the US came in, and the Sunni went ape shit..."

What might seem like a war to you, is not a war to others. The people on the ground in Iraq don't see it that way.

Where I'm going with this is that I think that any good will that was initially gained from the removal of Saddam is being lost rapidly with the current situation in Iraq. As more innocent people die and the situation remains out of control, people will get pissed and their attitudes can change. What might have been perceived as a tangible, great accomplishment by most people is being completely lost day by day.

All you have to do is look at history to see how that can play out.

The US was a major booster and ally to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s. Once the Soviets left, the US took off as well and let the commanders in there duke it out. Net result. 4 years of civil war, and a hatred of the States and Russia, and the eventual coming of the Taliban because they brought order back. We know how that played out.

[b]Jamie B, that's a good point about the clash of ego's going into Iraq. This is why when I win the lottery, I think I will just hire you as my official spokesperson. There will be lots of joints, good pay, and anytime people do ecstacy (Not me!) you can drive them around.[/b][/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='236812' date='Mar 22 2006, 04:21 PM']Rick, I'm not sure where you got that I was saying Saddam was a good dude.

But to use your example, ok, you're a guy who's wife was killed by Saddam, and you are living in Iraq right now. Your cousin is blown up with his family due to a roadside IED. Does the fact that Saddam is out of power completely erase any bad feelings you have now? No way right? Wouldn't you think "Holy fuck, we went from the frying pan to the fire here...dictator one time, now we're onto lawlessness in the streets...what really changed?" Isn't that the whole point with criticism of the situation? That innocent Iraqi's are still dying. Except now it's indiscrimanatory. (E.g. earlier you had to be a Kurd, a political opponent, a good looking girl that Uday wanted to get with, to get killed) Now you can just be Abdullah going down to the store to get this month's Economist Magazine and be turfed.[/quote]

i didn't mean to imply you said that... i said that you have to assume that the people in your example never had a run in w/ saddam and had no resentment towards him...

sorry, but these examples don't do it for me... like i said, we don't know what those people would be thinking... i know they wouldn't be happy.... but what does a person that had their husband tortured by uday, and didn't lose anyone close to them in this war... wouldn't they be happy still? there are many scenarios like this, and to only point out one and throw it in my face is making it too black and white... there are many different views in iraq, like there are in america... when i read some blogs from military guys, i am surprised to read that the soldiers are greated, many times, w/ waves, children, hugs, etc...

[quote]And I really do think you have to bring emotion into it, because the people getting killed and doing the killing are bringing emotion into it. These same people and their descendents will be the ones ostensibly running Iraq some day (as per current plans). Don't you think their experiences from these 3 years will determine their attitudes in the future towards the States? We just had a discussion on racism on this board in another thread and I think there was a great indicator of how people are emotionally conditioned to respond to something. Even if the causation was a long time ago.[/quote]

absolutely, but like i said above, there are many emotions to consider here... not just the people that had their home hit w/ a missile... emotions cloud our minds, and don't let us make the best decisions... i don't know how the people of iraq personally feel about america or the invasion and now the occupation... too many factors to consider, and not enough reporting either way, to show us how they are thinking... i was trying to find a poll of iraqi citizens a few months ago, to give me a better idea, and i still haven't found a respectable one...

[quote]"We are at war with terrorism"

Go back to the being an Iraqi example. You've lived your whole life in Baghdad, worked a job, been law abiding. Now you're living in the chaos of the city. Are you a terrorist? No. Wouldn't you think that any American who said "we are at war with terror" is a complete whack job? You'd be like, "What the fuck is this guy talking about war with terror? The only war we've seen is the war on the Iraqi people trying to live since Saddam got taken out and the US came in, and the Sunni went ape shit..."

What might seem like a war to you, is not a war to others. The people on the ground in Iraq don't see it that way.[/quote]

after seeing a suicide bomber blow up a crowd of children, i have a feeling they know exactly what terrorism is... i see your point, but how well was the guys life before the invasion? and do you think the majority of iraqis think that america is to blame for all these suicide attacks?

i don't understand why you can say so confidently, that the people on the ground in iraq don't see it as a war... are you just saying that, or do you have something to back that up?

[quote]Where I'm going with this is that I think that any good will that was initially gained from the removal of Saddam is being lost rapidly with the current situation in Iraq. As more innocent people die and the situation remains out of control, people will get pissed and their attitudes can change. What might have been perceived as a tangible, great accomplishment by most people is being completely lost day by day.

All you have to do is look at history to see how that can play out.

The US was a major booster and ally to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s. Once the Soviets left, the US took off as well and let the commanders in there duke it out. Net result. 4 years of civil war, and a hatred of the States and Russia, and the eventual coming of the Taliban because they brought order back. We know how that played out.[/quote]

wouldn't this history lesson point towards getting the job done, and not picking sides?

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote]. but what does a person that had their husband tortured by uday, and didn't lose anyone close to them in this war... wouldn't they be happy still?[/quote]


Rick, if you were an Iraqi and had lost no one close to you and had Uday torture someone you loved, you mean to tell me that you still wouldn't be angry / concerned / dissapointed that normal Iraqi's were now dying because of a lack of security?

For comparison purposes, I'm assuming you lost no one you knew personally in 9/11, but tell me you weren't angered by the deaths? If you found out that someone who had done you a great injustice in the past died in the WTC, would you still be happy even though the other 3,000 people died?

Similarly, when Hurricane Katrina hit, where you not even concerned a smidgen about the way your fellow country men were suffering? Did you not get angry when the level of destruction went beyond what was expected? When aid was late in arriving? A lot of Americans who were not in New Orleans and regardless of political affiliation seemed to get upset.

On a lesser scale, I have shares in an avian bird flu drug manufacturer. While personally if Avian bird flu hits N. America, the stock will rise and I will personally benefit, I sure don't want it to come as it might kill people and there's a chance someone I know could be afflicted.

People don't like it when their own innocent countrypeople are killed / hurt / in any way. Why wouldn't the Iraqi's feel the same? There seems to be a lot of pictorial evidence showing the unhappiness. For sure some people will be relieved that Saddam is gone and that would supercede all the other stuff that has happened since then. I think given human nature as a whole a lot of them would not be.

[quote]i don't understand why you can say so confidently, that the people on the ground in iraq don't see it as a war... are you just saying that, or do you have something to back that up?[/quote]

I think the Iraqi people on the ground definitely see it as a war, but not as a war on terror the way you mentioned it earlier. I think some people on the ground see the war as one that has been forced on them by the removal of Saddam and one they don't want to be in. Some people might see it as a struggle for Iraqi freedom. I don't think they would see it as a war on terror.

For example, you posted that excellent blog written by that Iraqi citizen in Baghdad. I'd be curious if in his archived posts he ever refers to the daily bombings and battles he writes about as "the war on terror" I doubt it. If you could post the link again, I'd like to check it out.

EDIT: I found his blog, checked it and others, at no point did any author mention they were part of the war on terror. Although some people did say they were in a war for the future of Iraq.

[quote]wouldn't this history lesson point towards getting the job done, and not picking sides?[/quote]

My original statement was with regards to the question "what great accomplishment was achieved" My whole point was that due to the way the situation has developed there in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam, what might have been considered an achievement is no longer one because the good will is rapidly deteriorating.

I think that's clear to see from the reactions of even regional players in the area. The Gulf Countries like UAE, Bahrain, Qatar all feared Saddam Hussein and would have loved him removed. Probably rejoiced a hell of a lot. But if you notice they all have condemned the situation a lot in the last two years.

If you want to go by history, yes, I think it shows you need to get the job done or at least have the correct plan in place to get the job done and try to minimize losses. This has not happened.

IMO, if the situation in Iraq is resolved within a year, and lets say there is a huge decline in the number of innocent people being taken out, I think that would be an accomplishment. Especially considering the situation today....where some people will argue it should not have descended to in the first place.

[BengalSIS]

Emotion is always a part of it. Knowing how people FEEL about what is going on is one of the first steps to finding solutions. To ignore that is ignorant and arrogant and will not get the desired results.

The whole use of propoganda and its success plays on emotions and you can't defeat it without recognizing that and finding a way to counter it.


This whole "war on terror" thing is bullshit.

[Guest bengalrick]

[i]I don't think they would see it as a war on terror. For example, you posted that excellent blog written by that Iraqi citizen in Baghdad. I'd be curious if in his archived posts he ever refers to the daily bombings and battles he writes about as "the war on terror" I doubt it. If you could post the link again, I'd like to check it out.[/i]

ask and you shall recieve... w/ the 3rd anniversary of the invasion just passed, and very great breakdown of how an iraqi feels about the situation... i have been reading his blog for a long time, and i personally give him a lot of credibility, but i'm glad you gave him some too...

btw, your right... he doesn't see this war in the same context as we do... but i see what your saying there...

excellent article and breakdown, from a guy that was very confident and proud, and is now pretty pissed, but still hopeful...

[url="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/"]iraqthemodel.com[/url]
[i] [b][size=3]The third anniversary...sacrifice, fear and hope.[/size]
[/b]

]It has been three years since 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' began and for three years we debated whether the decision was right or wrong and until this moment we have different feelings and opinions about where this operation brought us and where its aftermaths are going to lead us.

This disputed operation no doubt had-and will continue to have-major effects on the future of the region and the rest of the world and it's not limited to the boundaries of Iraq; a fact that makes rational debate legitimate by all standards.

To me, each anniversary brings emotions, thoughts and expectations; some are personal and others are for the future of my country and people. Today I relive those historic moments and remember the way my mind accepted and welcomed those moments like all, or say most Iraqis did as we were praying to see Saddam overthrown without even bothering to think of the consequences or results…all we wanted was to see Saddam out of power, period.

Maybe people still remember how Iraqis first reacted to the change; they directed their rage against anything that reminded them of the regime they hated, burning and looting anything that represented Saddam and his regime. The rich and the poor both stormed those buildings because those angry crowds felt those buildings were Saddam's property and few of us realized at that time that that was wrong yet the emotions driving it were understandable.

The smoke faded away and we woke up to see all the chains gone and instead of the God-president and his iron grip over our destinies, we found ourselves without a guide, without any guidance but our long buried primitive nature, the long repressed nature of loving freedom and practicing it.

The change began then, at that moment where reason mixed with sentiments; were we free…or, were we lost?

Actually it was a lot of both and there was also a sense of great relief that the terrifying warnings from hundreds of thousands of deaths, famine and mass refugees were not true at that point, on the contrary the military operation itself was clean and successful by all standards and didn't cause any serious harm to the civilian population, the infrastructure, or the marching troops.

Saddam was gone and suddenly Iraqis and Americans found themselves face to face in a place that felt new to both of them. They knew almost nothing about each other as the prison Saddam built around us left the world with little knowledge about Iraqis except for the whispers of Iraqis who fled the horrors of the tyrant.
On the other hand, all that Iraqis knew about America was that it's the merciless enemy of Muslims and Arabs, the invader coming for oil, the all-time supporter of Israel against the Palestinians, the imposer of the sanctions and above all, the America that let us down in 1991.

Now the two strangers had to work together to accomplish a goal Iraqis knew almost nothing about; they knew that America wanted to topple Saddam and secure the oil fields but that's all they knew while America was thinking of a huge transformation for the entire Middle East with Iraq being the key to that transformation.
There was a wide gap between the two but we had no choice but to work together, because in a moment Iraqis didn't choose, America and a group of Iraqi ex-pat leaders were suddenly replacing a regime that controlled everything for too long.
Iraqis were confused and vulnerable and there were too many differences to cope with but we were there and there was nothing we could do about it and we had to prepare ourselves for many transitional stages that some Iraqis thought were improvised and arbitrary while others thought were planned long time ago.

The question keeps ringing…
Was it the right decision to remove Saddam?

I say yes, and that's what most Iraqis said and still say even if they became divided over what happened later…the truth is that virtually no one wants Saddam back.

I will just ignore the weepers, whiners, teenagers and half educated naïve people and their silly rallies as I don't want to waste time on people who can do nothing but blindly oppose everything without thinking.
I will ignore them and focus on the more important goals we want to reach here…

Life stopped and time stopped when Saddam ruled Iraq, actually that totalitarian regime was moving backwards and dragging us with it and nothing could stop the deterioration that began the moment Saddam came to power.
We had to accept the change and live with all that would come along with it whether good or bad.
The democracy we're practicing today in Iraq is the exact opposite of what we had for decades and until three years ago. This democracy carries the essence of life, the differences, the dynamics and yes, the failures but also the seed of a better future.

Before the liberation we were suffering and we had no hope, now we are also suffering but we have hope and I see this hope even in the words of those that are cynical about the outcome of the political process; who say they hope things will be better in four years or eight years…
When Saddam was here we didn't have any hope and we could expect nothing good from a dead regime that cared only about its absolute existence.

Yes. We are facing enormous and dangerous challenges and this is not unexpected because the old will not easily step down and accept the loss; the old will fight back fiercely and the old here is not only Saddam and the Ba'ath, the old can be found among many of our current leaders and the mentality they carry that belong to the same generation that bred Saddam but I believe they will melt away as well because no one can go against the direction of time and the clock cannot be forced backwards.

The green bud looks weak and is buried in the dirt and surrounded by a tough shell but it will break through this covering, pierce the dirt and stand on its feet to announce a new era.
We will not be defeated and orphans of the dark past will get what they deserve and our sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who stand with us shall not go in vain, our sacrifices will pave an easier road for those want to follow us when they decide it's time for them to change.

And yes…Iraq will be the model.

Posted by Mohammed @ 19:26 [/i]

i think this pretty much sums up their point of view on this war...

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote]i think this pretty much sums up their point of view on this war...[/quote]

Sums up [i]his[/i] personal view. If you read the other iraqi blogs that he links to (right side of the page) and in general search others on the net, there are a lot of opinions different from his.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236862' date='Mar 22 2006, 05:46 PM'][b]This whole "war on terror" thing is bullshit.[/b][/quote]
That is simply untrue, unless you believe we bombed our own WTC buildings, bombed our own USS Cole, bombed our own embassies in Kenya and flew remote controlled planes into the WTC's for military gain and corporate profit.
I agree that there is a level of fear mongering going on....but the conflict IS real, and it is new to the US, confusing and scary.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Chris Henrys Dealer' post='236895' date='Mar 22 2006, 07:00 PM'][quote]
i think this pretty much sums up their point of view on this war...[/quote]

Sums up [i]his[/i] personal view. If you read the other iraqi blogs that he links to (right side of the page) and in general search others on the net, there are a lot of opinions different from his.
[/quote]

definately only his view... i'll have to check them out again, and see how much they have changed... it was somewhat mixed before....

[BengalSIS]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='236901' date='Mar 22 2006, 07:12 PM'][quote name='BengalSIS' post='236862' date='Mar 22 2006, 05:46 PM']


[b]This whole "war on terror" thing is bullshit.[/b][/quote]
That is simply untrue, unless you believe we bombed our own WTC buildings, bombed our own USS Cole, bombed our own embassies in Kenya and flew remote controlled planes into the WTC's for military gain and corporate profit.
I agree that there is a level of fear mongering going on....but the conflict IS real, and it is new to the US, confusing and scary.
[/quote]

I didn't say we weren't terrorized. My point is that you can't win a "war on terror" and you can't live under the constant language of war. It's too dangerous. You find a better term for it. But this "war on terror" is no better defined than the "war on drugs". We see how THAT turned out.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]but we are at war... no wonder there is such a disconnect between you and i (and others) on this matter... we may not be at war w/ a country, but [b]we certainly are at war w/ terrorism[/b]...[/quote]

I think the disconnect is with the folks who blindly swallow this premise--hook, line and sinker.

BR, you're smart enough to follow a lead and track it to ground. You've shown a proclivity to modify your thinking based on the evidence you discover.

So, explain this to me, please. Why haven't you done the necessary work to understand assymetric warfare (low-intensity conflict, surrogate warfare--whatever you wish to call it) in the context of geopolitical strategy, not only in terms of the theoretical relations between the two, but also as a practical matter of understanding the history of the last 250 years or so?

Some people are too lazy to do this. Others do not see the relevance of such inquiry in the context of their day-to-day lives. And, if that is so, then so be it. But please stop making unsupportable claims which, to those who have done the work, betray a profound ignorance of just what is going on, and just what is at stake.

I know this sounds harsh, but I'm saying this with charity and kindness. We are in the midst of an existential, systematic crisis in both this nation and in the world as a whole, so your contribution is needed and necessary. Broadly speaking, which kind of world do you want: the kind which resolves problems through diplomacy and a 358-years tradition* of international law, or one of chaos and brutality which would make the Dark Ages seem like a picnic?

That is what is at stake.

*Get out your calculator and your history chronologies...

[Jamie_B]

More on what Im talking about with Rummy... ([color="#CC0000"][b]Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general, was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004[/b][/color])

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19eaton.html?ex=1300424400&en=84baf7f1f2a4e5d6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss"]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/...serland&emc=rss[/url]

[quote]DURING World War II, American soldiers en route to Britain before D-Day were given a pamphlet on how to behave while awaiting the invasion. The most important quote in it was this: "It is impolite to criticize your host; it is militarily stupid to criticize your allies."

By that rule, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

In the five years Mr. Rumsfeld has presided over the Pentagon, I have seen a climate of groupthink become dominant and a growing reluctance by experienced military men and civilians to challenge the notions of the senior leadership.

I thought we had a glimmer of hope last November when Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced off with Mr. Rumsfeld on the question of how our soldiers should react if they witnessed illegal treatment of prisoners by Iraqi authorities. (General Pace's view was that our soldiers should intervene, while Mr. Rumsfeld's position was that they should simply report the incident to superiors.)

Unfortunately, the general subsequently backed down and supported the secretary's call to have the rules clarified, giving the impression that our senior man in uniform is just as intimidated by Secretary Rumsfeld as was his predecessor, Gen. Richard Myers.

Mr. Rumsfeld has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his cold warrior's view of the world and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower. As a result, the Army finds itself severely undermanned — cut to 10 active divisions but asked by the administration to support a foreign policy that requires at least 12 or 14.

Only Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff when President Bush was elected, had the courage to challenge the downsizing plans. So Mr. Rumsfeld retaliated by naming General Shinseki's successor more than a year before his scheduled retirement, effectively undercutting his authority. The rest of the senior brass got the message, and nobody has complained since.

Now the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review shows that Mr. Rumsfeld also fails to understand the nature of protracted counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and the demands it places on ground forces. The document, amazingly, does not call for enlarging the Army; rather, it increases only our Special Operations forces, by a token 15 percent, maybe 1,500 troops.

Mr. Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war — ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like Gen. Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi Army and security forces might melt away after the state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos.

It is all too clear that General Shinseki was right: several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

The true professional always looks to the "What's next?" phase. Unfortunately, the supreme commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, either didn't heed that rule or succumbed to Secretary Rumsfeld's bullying. We won't know which until some bright historian writes the true story of Mr. Rumsfeld and the generals he took to war, an Iraq version of the Vietnam War classic "Dereliction of Duty" by H. R. McMaster.

Last, you don't expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals and providing police uniforms randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction firms to build barracks was withheld; contracts we made for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi Army were rewritten back in Washington.

Donald Rumsfeld demands more than loyalty. He wants fealty. And he has hired men who give it. Consider the new secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey, who when faced with the compelling need to increase the service's size has refused to do so. He is instead relying on the shell game of hiring civilians to do jobs that had previously been done by soldiers, and thus keeping the force strength static on paper. This tactic may help for a bit, but it will likely fall apart in the next budget cycle, with those positions swiftly eliminated.

So, what to do?

First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground. Perhaps a proven Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman could repair fissures that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and the Pentagon big shots.

More vital in the longer term, Congress must assert itself. Too much power has shifted to the executive branch, not just in terms of waging war but also in planning the military of the future. Congress should remember it still has the power of the purse; it should call our generals, colonels, captains and sergeants to testify frequently, so that their opinions and needs are known to the men they lead. Then when they are asked if they have enough troops — and no soldier has ever had enough of anything, more is always better — the reply is public.

Our most important, and sometimes most severe, judges are our subordinates. That is a fact I discovered early in my military career. It is, unfortunately, a lesson Donald Rumsfeld seems incapable of learning.[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

a couple of things... i read up on assymmetric warfare some, but i still feel the same... the reason being, is the example that is pointed out most prominantly is usually vietnam... the difference between vietnam and iraq, is that alot of the people we are fighting, can and probably will come to us to fight... the stakes are so much higher in this case... if we lose (pull out prematurely), iran would engulf iraq, and turkey will probably take over the kurds in teh north... this is not a good outcome... the majority of our problems early in the war, is the lack of good intel... that leads me to my next point....

and a great way to counter this tactic, is to train and use iraqi soldiers and police, like we are slowly doing.... by doing this, they can not gain the public support that is essential to win that type of war... they do, however, have the media eating out of the palms of their hands... i don't think intentially, but b/c that is what sells.... and the more people we get, the better intel we get.... there are thousands of ways this helps, but it takes away another key ingrediant in assymmetric warfare, which is knowing the land better... we are not doing nearly as many operations there even now, and i suspect that that trend will continue....

but why is [url="http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/02/japan_to_help_r.html"]this[/url] common knowledge... how many people did that right there kill in those 30 years?
[i]
[A] more serious threat emerged in 1991, when Saddam Hussein's regime began building an extensive network of dykes and channels to take water away from the marsh area, which originally extended for almost 9,000 sq km.

Satellite images showed that by 2002, the area had shrunk to only 760 sq km; an estimated 70,000 people were forced into camps in Iran.[/i]


[url="http://sheepcrib.blogspot.com/2005/08/good-news-from-iraq.html"]click here[/url]
[i]
But yesterday a [url="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ik512.doc.htm"]United Nations[/url] report on a multi-million-pound restoration project revealed new satellite imagery showing a big increase in water and vegetation cover in the past three years. The marshes have rebounded to about 37 per cent of their 1970 extent, from about 10 per cent in 2002.[/i]

this is a big deal... this was purposely, depriving his people the ability to work their land.... and this is the first time i've heard about this, for some reason... quite frankly, if i'm wrong in my thinking, then i'm glad the iraqis will benefit in the future b/c of it... like that article i posted said, and i personally think it is the overall opinion of alot of iraqis: [i]Before the liberation we were suffering and we had no hope, now we are also suffering but we have hope[/i]... we can't let these people down again homer.... they have been suffering enough...

btw, have you been keeping up w/ the iraqi documents coming out?? i know they aren't verified, but w/ this amount of documents, we should be able to assume that it would be damn near impossible to forge all that shit, and that we can pick out the pieces that make no sense, and ignore them.... i think its a very exciting time, for the government to release so much information, in order to utilize the internet to our advantage...

good place to check out the translated documents is [url="http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/iraq_files/"]pajamas media[/url]

very intersting stuff, so far...

[Homer_Rice]

I...give...up... .

[BengalSIS]

Rick, you can't just ignore what you think makes no sense. Otherwise, there isn't a whole lot for me to read from your posts.

Seriously man, you sound like a Bushbot. I know you are trying hard to understand this stuff. And I don't get half of it myself, but your reasoning goes in circles and I can't keep track of the number of times you contradict yourself. I have a lot of respect for your efforts here, but I can't argue with circular points. It's pointless.

[|Montana Bengal|]

[quote name='BengalSIS' post='236997' date='Mar 22 2006, 07:55 PM']Rick, you can't just ignore what you think makes no sense. Otherwise, there isn't a whole lot for me to read from your posts.

Seriously man, you sound like a Bushbot. I know you are trying hard to understand this stuff. And I don't get half of it myself, but your reasoning goes in circles and I can't keep track of the number of times you contradict yourself. I have a lot of respect for your efforts here, but I can't argue with circular points. It's pointless.[/quote]

Does it remind you the Princess Bride at all?

"Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in Black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Man in Black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in Black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!"

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='236923' date='Mar 22 2006, 07:55 PM'][quote]but we are at war... no wonder there is such a disconnect between you and i (and others) on this matter... we may not be at war w/ a country, but [b]we certainly are at war w/ terrorism[/b]...[/quote]

I think the disconnect is with the folks who blindly swallow this premise--hook, line and sinker.

BR, you're smart enough to follow a lead and track it to ground. You've shown a proclivity to modify your thinking based on the evidence you discover.

So, explain this to me, please. Why haven't you done the necessary work to understand assymetric warfare (low-intensity conflict, surrogate warfare--whatever you wish to call it) in the context of geopolitical strategy, not only in terms of the theoretical relations between the two, but also as a practical matter of understanding the history of the last 250 years or so?

Some people are too lazy to do this. Others do not see the relevance of such inquiry in the context of their day-to-day lives. And, if that is so, then so be it. But please stop making unsupportable claims which, to those who have done the work, betray a profound ignorance of just what is going on, and just what is at stake.

I know this sounds harsh, but I'm saying this with charity and kindness. We are in the midst of an existential, systematic crisis in both this nation and in the world as a whole, so your contribution is needed and necessary. Broadly speaking, which kind of world do you want: the kind which resolves problems through diplomacy and a 358-years tradition* of international law, or one of chaos and brutality which would make the Dark Ages seem like a picnic?

That is what is at stake.

*Get out your calculator and your history chronologies...
[/quote]

Homer,

You know very well we are dealing with Islamic-fascist and they do not give a shit about International Law, yet you want us to follow the rules. Aditionally, you also know that [b]THEY [/b] [u]are the ones that have chosen to deal in chaos and brutality, in an attempt to revert the world back to the 7th Century (Iran 1979).

I give you that the way our Government's (throughout centuries) has handled it's political affairs in the Middle East has been less than desirable. But as you well know, we are an Expanionist Nation in the economic sense which (unfortunately) has lead our foreign policies. Here is where I believe we have a problem and where we have to change our philosophy in dealing with the Middle East
(see Osama Bin Laden).

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

[quote name='Lawman' post='237107' date='Mar 23 2006, 08:25 AM']You know very well we are dealing with Islamic-fascist and they do not give a shit about International Law, yet you want us to follow the rules. Aditionally, you also know that [b]THEY [/b] [u]are the ones that have chosen to deal in chaos and brutality, in an attempt to revert the world back to the 7th Century (Iran 1979).[/quote]

So the years of brutality under the Shah and his SAVAK secret police had nothing to do with it? The Iranian revolution was quite popular with the Iranian masses in 1979. Do you really think the Iranian people just decided overnight, "Word up! let's get radical" The advocation of Shariah law was passed by referendum. Not by decree. So it clearly wasn't just a case of some fundamentals enforcing their views, but a move which in Iran had major support at the time. Especially amongst the university students.

I don't think they moved their country back to the 7th Century. Employment for women actually improved under Khomeini, as did education. Women got the vote in Iran under Khomeini.

Education became free, and quotas were established for women in services like medicine, law etc. This at at time when even countries in the West didn't have these. Some major US allies in the Gulf today still don't have these.

If I'm not mistaken, Khomeini even decreed that in some cases transgender surgery was permitted. That's pretty out there for an Islamic cleric let alone any religious leader in the world today.

Iran has more women in public office now then men. While all we read about in the papers here are the stonings or the harsh rulings and the general madness of Ahmedinajad, you can't overlook that. And it's clear that a lot of the country's power since then has been hijacked by Radical clerics in the leadership but to compare the iranian revolution to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan is inaccurate. Just basic browsing through history books and even Western media if you want can show that.

[Guest bengalrick]

the outcome of leaving prematurely now, would be disasterous... not only would iraq become a vacume of power, but our reputation w/ people that actually do believe we are their only hope, or this movement can help them (see [url="http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/03/23/belarusnews.shtml"]belarus[/url] right now, as a matter of fact)...

i have changed my views on future attacks, but that doesn't mean we can erase history... its as simply as that, to me... and while, if i was deliberately lied to, i will try to figure out who knew what, and so on... b/c the CIA could have an agenda, just the same as president bush could... but reguardless, i am glad we are helping the people of iraq... i am confident that if we can stay strong over some more time, we will overcome the insurgants... and hopefully, we can figure out more ways to get them to join the rebuilding, instead of just trying to capture or kill them...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='237107' date='Mar 23 2006, 08:25 AM']You know very well we are dealing with Islamic-fascist and they do not give a shit about International Law, yet you want us to follow the rules. Aditionally, you also know that [b]THEY [/b] [u]are the ones that have chosen to deal in chaos and brutality, in an attempt to revert the world back to the 7th Century (Iran 1979).

I give you that the way our Government's (throughout centuries) has handled it's political affairs in the Middle East has been less than desirable. But as you well know, we are an Expanionist Nation in the economic sense which (unfortunately) has lead our foreign policies. Here is where I believe we have a problem and where we have to change our philosophy in dealing with the Middle East
(see Osama Bin Laden).[/quote]

Chief, you haven't got the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='237176' date='Mar 23 2006, 10:23 AM'][quote name='Lawman' post='237107' date='Mar 23 2006, 08:25 AM']
You know very well we are dealing with Islamic-fascist and they do not give a shit about International Law, yet you want us to follow the rules. Aditionally, you also know that [b]THEY [/b] [u]are the ones that have chosen to deal in chaos and brutality, in an attempt to revert the world back to the 7th Century (Iran 1979).

I give you that the way our Government's (throughout centuries) has handled it's political affairs in the Middle East has been less than desirable. But as you well know, we are an Expanionist Nation in the economic sense which (unfortunately) has lead our foreign policies. Here is where I believe we have a problem and where we have to change our philosophy in dealing with the Middle East
(see Osama Bin Laden).[/quote]

Chief, you haven't got the faintest idea of what you're talking about.
[/quote]

So, I have no idea what an Islamic-Fascist is:

from "My Girl"

[i]His Eminence, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the supreme religious authority for Shi'ite Msulims in Iraq
and worldwide, decrees that gays and lesbians should be killed in the worst manner possible, according to this news article from a London-based gay rights group.[/i]

A quick search through Sistani's official website turns up this page, translated as:

Q: What is the judgement on sodomy and lesbianism?

A: "Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible."

That's an Islamic-Fascist. Al-Qaida are Islamic-fascist, Shia's are Islamic-fascist.

But the irony to me, is that the Sunni's, the Bathist and Saddam Loyalist (who are NOW attacking AQII; which I mentioned would happen a couple of months ago) and their secularism are the ones we should throw support, along with the Kurds, that can help prevent from happening in Iraq like what happened in Iran.

IMHO, The Sunni's and Kurd's need to form a political alliance to offset the Shittes.

I think we have several issues combined in this thread. On the premise of this thread are talking about Al-Qaida's plot to destablize Iraq through a civil war and somehow we've added our worldwide battle against terrorism.

But when you say "there is no war-on-terror", I contend that you sir, haven't got the faintest idea of what you're talking about. There is a war-on-terror and it is being fought on so many different levels.

Now, you are going to come back that I have been drinking kool-aid from the cup of the GOP; that is farthest from the truth. My info doesn't come from the MSM.

Now if, you are talking about our foreign policy driven by our economic expansionism, I concede I am not subject matter expert, but how far off am I.

Example: If you got something we want, let's talk. If you ain't got anything to offer, well not right now.
That's what I have been hearing from your liberal friends, all along as part of their argument when it comes to bashing the U.S's

IMHO, I believe this to be only partially true along other reasons, like especially now as part of our plan to combat the war-on-terror. Look at what were doing in certain African nations where they really have nothing to much to offer other than the denial of breeding ground access to Islamic-Fascist.

BTW, the USS Mercy is on it's way to the Phillipines, just helping others less fortunate
is the right thing to do, but in today's political climate, we must be up to something

[Lawman]

From "My Girl"

We Should Have Treated Iraq Like Japan

And written their new constitution for them, and forbad religion as an element in government, while also forcing them to Westernize. Those elements we imposed on the defeated Japanese at the end of World War II saved their people, their nation and made them competitive with the rest of the civilized world.

[i]Intro to the Sistani item in my previous post.[/i]

[Lawman]

for BengalSIS,

Los Angeles Times
March 23, 2006
Right Invasion, Wrong Explanation
By Jonah Goldberg

The best moment of political theater at the president's news conference this week came when that thespian carbuncle of bile, Helen Thomas, hung a question mark at the end of a diatribe. The "dean" of the White House press corps all but called President Bush a lying warmonger who invaded Iraq for no legitimate reason.

Thomas lost the exchange, but the sad truth is that her side has won the larger argument. Ever since the controversy over the "16 words" in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address —[u] in which the president alleged that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa [/u] — the administration has been gun-shy about defending its original decision to invade. That's understandable, given the consequences of that episode: Not only did it make the White House seem inept, it made former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson and his very important hair a permanent fixture of the media firmament.

It is now simply taken as a given inside this White House that having an argument about why we invaded Iraq is a political loser. So the president prefers to talk democracy, not WMD.

This might explain why the administration has been so blase about declassifying about 50,000 boxes of captured Iraqi documents. We don't know what's in many of these boxes. [u]But what has been released so far has been, at minimum, tantalizing, pointing to and illuminating ties between Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda as well as other terrorist organizations, including Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines.[/u]

There are no smoking guns so far. And we probably won't find an Iraqi equivalent of the Zimmerman telegram — which exposed Germany's hostile intent before World War I — languishing in some government warehouse, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of the first "Indiana Jones" movie.
But what these documents — as well as other after-action intelligence gathering — [b]demonstrate is that given what he knew at the time, George W. Bush was right to invade Iraq.[/b]

We now know that the CIA bureaucracy was simply wrong to insist that "secular" Iraq would never work with Islamist terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf. [b]We know that Iraq harbored and very likely supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the suspected bomb makers involved in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993.[/b]

According to the Pentagon's definitive postmortem on the invasion, some of which was leaked to the New York Times, even many Iraqi generals were stunned to discover that Hussein didn't have WMD. Hussein practiced a strategy that one Republican Guard commander called "deterrence by doubt," in which he hoped to bluff the world into believing he had WMD in order to deter Iran and keep his rep as an Arab strongman with serious mojo.

And that's the point Thomas et al don't want to understand. For reasons that still baffle me, [b]the WMD threat — [u]never the sole reason[/u] to invade Iraq — not only became the only argument, it became a thoroughly legalistic one, as if foreign policy has rules of evidence and procedural due process.[/b] After 9/11, that kind of foreign policy by lawyers looked ridiculous, and rightly so.

[b]The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn't a mark against Bush's decision. If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault[/b].

Hussein had a 30-year track record of pursuing WMD. He dealt with Islamic terrorists. The sanctions regime fell apart thanks to Iraqi bribery and 30 years of spineless U.N. accommodation.
In the 1990s, Hussein tried to kill a former U.S. president and tried to shoot down British and American planes enforcing the "no-fly" zone. [u]The Clinton administration — not the George W. Bush administration — established "regime change" as our policy toward Iraq.[/u] In the years that followed, the Iraqi regime openly celebrated the 9/11 attack. [u]And when we tried to get Hussein to come clean about a weapons program we (and his own generals!) had every reason to believe existed, he played games. After 9/11, calling that bluff wasn't a "choice," it was an obligation.[/u]

One reason Bush is down in the polls is that he's giving the impression that he's trying to change the subject from "our mistaken invasion" to "building democracy in Iraq." He would serve himself and the county better if he simply explained that he's been right all along. Swatting Helen Thomas is a start, but it will take a lot more.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote]But when you say "there is no war-on-terror", I contend that you sir, haven't got the faintest idea of what you're talking about. There is a war-on-terror and it is being fought on so many different levels.[/quote]

Actually, I know too much. That's why I know, beyond doubt, that the so-called "war on terror" is a red herring. Call it a "war against those who don't serve the interests of our ruling classes" and then you would be onto something.

In fact, if you knew your history, you would know that it is precisely the remnants and heirs of the fascist 20s-40s who are causing most of the trouble. And, if you are plugged into intel, as I think you once suggested, this shouldn't be that hard to confirm. Find out who put Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler in power and follow the networks to the present day. In this way, you would get a more precise understanding of just what fascism is, and what it is not. Now, it is true that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a sympathizer during WWII, and that after the war he was in a tenuous alliance with the Ikwan, but you should also find out who else's payroll he was on.

If you do do intel work, as an operative or an analyst, then you know I'm not whistling Dixie. Don't focus on the cutouts and throwaways, focus on those who run the networks.

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

And this is quite possibly the Stoner Face of Zarqawi

[img]http://www.tucmh.org/toke/images/11-p21rasta.jpg[/img]