Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

"I hope you are able to find your way onto Party and rake in some extra bucks in between your deployments."

Thanks, and I do [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

"I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about this war, but I respect where you are coming from and I want to become better informed. My primary objection to the war in Iraq is that I fear that the presence of American troops in the Middle East is recruiting as many or more terrorists than you and other brave soldiers are killing and capturing. This is based on reading different sources regarding what is going on down there, as you are right that I obviously don't know anything first hand."

I think there is some merit to what you say. I think our presence clearly outrages the fundementalists, encourages the Arabs who crave democracy, and make most Arab leaders uncomfortable.

"Maybe you could help answer some questions for me. To what extent is the "insurgency" in Iraq made up of Arab terrorists who were already plotting against the U.S. before the war in Iraq? How many of them are disgruntled Sunnis?"

Now, more of the former rather than the later. I think the insurgency would've run its course by now if it hadn't been for the foriegn fighters. The vast majority of all casualties today are caused by non-Iraqi's.

"How good is our intelligence finding terrorists? We have been told that we have eliminated many of the members of al Qaeda who had leadership roles in 2001, and it looks like we have made a good deal of progress disrupting the organizational capacity of al Qaeda. In my opinion, this has been our best achievement in the "War on Terror." But is al Qaeda filling these holes with new recruits? Are other terrorist organizations being created with similar goals against America?"

Our Int is good, gets better over time and so does the terrorists ability to counter it. It is a constantly evolving spectrum. As we take out members, the gaps get filled by less experienced players for the most part. Much of our success has been through improved cooperation between the military and other government organizations and those organizations between each other. Hopefully, that can continue.

"I too find the threat of terrorism to be very serious and worth fighting. I am just skeptical that we are on the right course to minimize the prospect of another major attack. I think we are blessed that we have not been attacked since 2001, but I am concerned that it seems like there are even more Arab terrorists with designs on killing many Americans."

In many ways we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. We have broadened our rules somewhat but we still fight by a set of rules, which is a good thing. Our enemy have no rules which makes it difficult for us. For Example, studies show that torture is a bad method for gaining true, valuable information. Sleep deprivation is a very good tool, which is not allowed to its fullest extent.
On your second point, I think there is some merit to the thinking that fighting abroad is reducing the risk at home. I have no way to prove that but it seems to be the case.

"Anyway, I'd love hearing more about what you have experienced, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. (I'd especially be interested in how similar or different you think the enemy is in these two locations.) You definitely have an insight that the rest of us don't, and it would be great if you could share it with us."

Similar and different in many, many ways.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is stupid. One guy's opinions are deemed a "reality check" by himself? Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend? You have some good points, but to call this war one of national survival is embarassingly inept, but I point you to andy's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the GWOT is not a war of national survival what do you think it is? A war of convenience? What is Al Qaeda's stated mission?

You are in fact correct that this is one guy's opinion. But I guarantee you that my insight is far broader than many simply from first hand experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you're in the military means you have some spectacular insight that we cannot comprehend?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to matter for John Murtha, who has insight as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "GWOT" (which I assume means greater war on terror) is certainly not about national survival. On their best day, terrorists took 3,000 lives. More than that number were born that day. Terrorism is a media operation. It intends to strike fear into the population, because they cannot win a conventional war. You really think there's a legit chance of total destruction? I guess nuclear weapons could come into play, even though they would not decimate the nation. Regardless, I was referring more to the war in Iraq specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its fair to say that you think you are right and I think you are wrong.

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

"The NSA isn’t listening to you talk to your wife about picking up a loaf of bread on the way home."

"But they are! The NSA are also listen in on you talk to your lover - or your boss - or whomever. They are supposed to listen to most everything and then filter out the noise and stick to the juice. And with PATRIOT, it only gets worse. So if you think that there is not enormous room for abuse here, you are mistaken."

You are correct on every point. Although I think they hear every call you make on your cell phone, I would hope they are not listening . I don't like hope as a course of action, but what is the alternative?

"Over 80% of people like me agree that he’s doing a pretty good job based on the military vote in the last election."

If you want only professional soldiers to have the right to vote, just say so. In the meantime, this kind of percentage is as meaningful as the voting proclivities of Blonde American Women."

Only if Blonde American Women had the most recent, hands on experience in the most important issue today.

"You really don’t know anything more than what you read or hear about second hand instead of seeing or touching or feeling it first hand, so keep that in mind when you state your opinion."

No-nonsense Americans, people who are siding with the military first and looking at the question second, experts such as Melvin Laird, ex-Sec of Defense during Vietnam's most ferocious phase, or Zbigniew Brzezinky, ex-NSC chief and extreme anti-Soviet, or Henry Kissinger, a known war criminal, are not exactly saying kind things about the war that Bush is conduting! From one perspective or others, it is being suggested, with very delicate words, that the war is a huge SNAFU. And these are folks who are genuinely interested in America advanncing its interests in the world and strengthening its security. These guys are all enthusiastic imperialists!

You choose to discount such input, and others' like them, that's your prerogative. I'd say you're perhaps too close to the action to see the big picture but then perhaps you'd flame me. (Perhaps literally. ) "

I was a bit harsh in the way my closing sounded. I respect everyones right to an opinion and to state that opinion. But in my opinion, it is an opinion that is incomplete from a lack of hands on experience with terrorists. I don't discount it out of hand, I just know something else and have a different perspective.

I can assure you, a lot of the analysis I see on TV or read in the news is so fundementally flawed that its laughable. I think the one question we all need to ask ourselves is "do we really want to win this thing or not?" Clearly we disagree on the stakes we are fighting for. I think a lot of the posters who say we are not fighting for national survival think that winning is a given. Its not. And the consequences of losing impacts our ability to discuss the right and wrong of any subject.

If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

Hey Peter,

Where am I "harping" about the invasion? (Or did you mean the president's professional critics?)

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

"You didn't post the next sentence, I wonder why?"

I don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain.

Thanks.

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

I posted the below in one of the spy/wiretap threads in response to Elliot and think it is applicable here as well.

"Do you remember in the film The Untouchables where Sean Connery's character asked Costner's character, "What are you willing do do?", and Costner/Ness responded, "All that the law allows". And then Connery asked, "And then what?".

The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties. If we're not willing to do that then either we will fail to defeat them or the cost will be much higher in american lives if we do succeed.

The positions of those such as yourself who see dictatorship looming when we make reasonable sacrifices with restrictions on our liberties during wartime are what makes terrorists and rogue nations think we are weak and that they can defeat us by dragging out a conflict and sapping our political will.

And the sacrifices such as I have adovcated here being correct, are what helps save the lives of our soldiers and intelligence agents in the field. They're doing their duty and we need to do ours to them. "

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

>>but just that by keeping them shorter, when Cyrus feels compelled to parse them line by line and word by word and rebut to each minute part, then his overall reply post won't have to be 3 monitor screens high.<<

What a hoot - Wind him up and watch him go LMAO

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

>>The terrorists have that determination and so should we as far as making temporary exceptions regarding some personal liberties<<

The problem here is the 'slippery slope'.

The Executive already has the power to use the NSA for domestic spying purposes. There is a check on this power, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Prior approval from this court is not necessary - it can be granted 'after the fact'.

So, if Bush can use the NSA, and does not currently need prior approval to use it (negating the argument that he needs this power to 'move quickly'), why cut this check on executive power out of the loop? Honestly, this just doesn't pass the smell test.

Put that together with recent revelations that the FBI is using precious assets and personnel to spy on vegans, Quakers, and Greenpeace members instead of islamic terrorists, and connect the dots.

The war on islamic terror is real. It is also a fact that the executive is taking advantage of this reality to greatly expand their powers in areas unrelated to the war on terror.

We need to keep paying attention.

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

The "slippery sloap" thing is just an overused scare tactic. The only reason to temporarily not follow normal procedures is because the demands of war time intelligence have a greater urgency and the FISA process is actually longer than 72 hours and sometimes is too long for a pressing intelligence gathering need.

We live in a robust democracy and have the ability to elect legislators who can ammend the constitution if necessary to redress anything carried too far. And we actually still have far less secrecy and governmental powers in defense and intelligence matters that Britain does with their Official Secrets Act and the government's ability to use royal prerogative powers, and they haven't gone down the road to 1984 Big Brother, even though some there don't like those government powers either.

Re: Big, Fat Reality Check
 

>>The "slippery sloap" thing is just an overused scare tactic.<<

It's not a 'tactic' - it addresses a reality that our founders were acutely aware of, namely that 'power corrupts'. That is precisely why they devised an elaborate system of checks and balances on power. The fact that our experiment in Democracy has been so successful is a monument to their wisdom - and that wisdom should not be carelessly dismissed or discarded IMO.

>>The only reason to temporarily not follow normal procedures is because the demands of war time intelligence have a greater urgency and the FISA process is actually longer than 72 hours<<

As I pointed out earlier, current law grants the Executive the right to use NSA assets for domestic surveillance *without prior approval*. They do need to present their evidence and rationale to the court after the fact.

Now, if for some reason the current system is too unwieldy, slow, or 'bureaucratic', why not change or adjust the law to streamline the process? No attempt was made to do this. The president simply, unilaterally, decided that law did not apply to him.

Honestly, plenty of people - patriots, liberals, conservatives - are deeply troubled by this development.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

[ QUOTE ]
PR -- Thanks for your reply and I am glad to hear you are busting the fish in addition to fighting the bad guys.

I guess I have one major question that I haven't been able to answer. What does it mean to "win" the War on Terror, and what kind of casualties (fatalities and injuries) will it realistically take to win? Does winning mean the complete elimination of all people who support killing American civilians (this would seem like a never ending task)? Does it mean weakening the terrorist organizations so that they cannnot plot an attack on American without great difficulty (and does this mean that we still have a basically never ending task)? Does it mean reducing the capabilities of terrorists so that while they might still be able to launch small scale attacks (car bombs), they cannot succeed in a large scale attack like 9/11?

Of course, I would like to see terrorists eliminated completely, but what is the cost in doing so? We have already lost several thousand American troops and seen tens of thousands more be seriously injured. Based on your post and my encounters with other people in the military, I can see that the military is made of up really special and heroic people. I value highly the sacrifice you and your fellow soldiers are making, but I also recognize how valuable it is to everyone (especially the people who know you well) to bring you back safe and sound.

I think the War on Terror is complicated, because I don't think we can just do what the Islamists are demanding (removing our troops from the Middle East) and it's not clear at this point whether they would stop attacking us even if we did. But at the same time, when I see how many American troops have been killed, how many have been injured, how many Iraqis have been killed, it's hard for me to call what's happening "winning." If this is what victory looks like, then it comes with a heavy pricetag.

I think that is something that bothers a lot of us who don't agree with the war in Iraq but do support the war on terror (though maybe not as much as you think we should). In Afghanistan, it seemed like we made a lot of progress. We really routed al Qaeda's organizational capacities and killed or captured many key operatives. (I'm including subsequent captures in Pakistan, like Kalid Sheikh-Mohammed.) At the same time, we were able to limit our casualties because our goals were rather modest. We routed the Taliban (necessary because of their support for al Qaeda) and oversaw a regime change, but we were successful it seems because Afghanistan is a small country, the Afghani people strongly wanted the American military presence to fill the leadership vacuum, and we chose a mission which had relatively well-defined objectives. Even without finding Osama bin Laden (and the fact that the Afghan government is now descending into chaos again), I think the Afghan war was largely a success.

In contrast, we have lost many more lives in Iraq, and from what I see reported, it does not look like we have made nearly as many gains. It seems like American officials are still struggling to figure out the insurgency. Despite the fact that we have the best military in the world that always completes the mission they are assigned, the insurgency has strengthened over time, not weakened. That tells me that they are winning the political battle and the battle for civilian support -- it's obvious to me that they can never win in direct military confrontations. Moreover, they have now made our policy decisions hard. Do we increase the intensity of our searches for insurgents to try to stop their progress, at the risk of alienating ordinary Iraqis? (A lot of people in Washington -- I mean policy folks not our Congressman and Senators who are too busy grandstanding on the issue -- now think we were too aggressive in pursuing the insurgents earlier and alienated too many Iraqi families.) But without increasing the intensity of our pursuit, how do we expect to weaken the insurgency?

It is these kind of complexities that make it hard for me to support the decision to go to war in Iraq (though now that we are there, I do believe we must do what we can to "win" by providing the Iraqis the necessary resources -- political and military -- to maintain their new democratic system). Yes, I want to "win" the war on terrorism by making it less likely that a terrorist can pull off an attack like the one we tragically saw on 9/11. I am just not sure that the aggressive approach of looking everywhere for places to attack them is the best strategy. I think it is better to pick our spots. We reduce the losses and strain on our military; we give the enemy less recruiting propoganda to try to get new recruits; yet we still pursue them aggressively when the conditions are favorable for us.

Ultimately, I think our nation still has to accept that there is always a risk of terrorist attack and we can never completely eliminate it. If we go after Saddam Hussein, then that buys time for Kim Jong-Il. If we destroy terror training camps in Afghanistan, new ones will likely emerge in Somalia or Egypt. Like you said, it is a cat and mouse game, with both sides trying to get one step ahead of the other. Because of that, we have to make good strategic decisions about how to go after terrorists. Is it better to try to pursue their individual cells, or is it better to get after heads of rogue states who might ultimately supply the cells with weapons? Will going after a head of state create a power vacuum that will lead to the creation of many new cells? Will going after individual cells be stymied by their hiding in a state controlled by a rogue leader? Can we achieve our objectives through the threat of military force without using it? (Arguably, we were doing so in Iraq before the war started, albeit somewhat imperfectly.)

My main concerns regarding the leadership in this country is not whether they are pursuing the right goals (at least in terms of foreign policy), but whether they are doing so in the smartest and most strategic way. We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad bad man and was evil (just like Kim Jong-Il and several other heads of state are); but just because he is very bad and evil does not mean that it is necessarily in the best interest of the U.S. to remove him from power. While there were some positive consequences of the war, there have also been some negative consequences. I have my doubts as to whether President Bush can effectively weigh the two considerations and come to the right conclusion. (In fairness to him, he has to appear optomistic in his speeches even when things are obviously not going as well as he says they are in order to try to keep morale up and support for the war from eroding.)

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.

Cheers,
Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post. You are 100% correct about the complexity of this war. We as Americans have developed a kind of Burger King mentality. We want it our way and we want it now. Unfortunately, the way this war is going to play out, our second biggest enemy could become perseverance.

What does winning mean/when will we win? I honestly don't know. I don't know if we'll ever know we've won in terms we historically understand. This is a war unlike any other we've ever fought and it challenges us in many different ways.

Iraq compared to Afghanistan is much more complex. The media doesn't tell the whole story because they don't have or desire access to it. In otherwords, very few of them want to put their lives on the line to tell it.

Someone, maybe it was you, but someone in this thread wrote that the war was being fought in the media. Beyond what I said in my OP I won't comment about the President and my comments in the OP were meant to be neutral. That being said, everytime someone important says "Bush lied about prewar intel," or "we should withdraw immediately," or "the CIA has secret prisons in Batswana," the enemy is emboldened. They feed off of that. They don't understand our culture of political debate. Does that mean we stop political debate in our country? Of course not. The only way to change their lack of understanding about political debate or free speech is to let them experience it.

zipo file
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a hoot - Wind him up and watch him go

[/ QUOTE ] Hey, where you been? I'd flame your little behind some more -- but you're making way too much sense in this thread.

May the gods
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.

[/ QUOTE ] You are fighting the wrong war, if you think you're fighting terrorism in Iraq. (Well, now you are indeed fighting terrorists as well, because there are terrorists among the insurgents. But this is no excuse.)

The war against terrorism, i.e. what you called the war for Natiional Survival (choke, gasp), is not a war in the sense that wars have been fought thus far in history. That idiot of a president sends, as is his wont, gunships, tomahawks and aircraft carriers to do battle ...with ghosts.

Terrorists have no country whose frontiers you can invade; no capital whose capture would cripple their efforts; no industrial or agrarian infrastructure whose demolition would choke them from raw materials; no CCC hubs which can be neutralized.

Quite probably, you will learn this very slowly (and I say this because your lot seems hell bent on NOT learning from your mistakes) and also quite painfully. It's in the cards.

May the gods of poker shed some light to your path.

Re: May the gods
 

Man what a masterful military analysis. Insurgents and terrorists with guns, bombs, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons are really just ghosts so there is no point in our arming our troops as best as possible and teaching them counter-insurgency warfare tactics (you know that assymetrical stuff).

Surely you need to be teaching this stuff as a guest lecturer at the War College.

I Need Your Pagers. All Y\'All.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Al-Qaeda and their ilk make heavy use of satellite communications, cellular technology, and the Internet. How is the NSA 'mostly useless' against this?

[/ QUOTE ] I would guess that they are using the internet, yes -- so they'd know a thing or two about ops like the NSA's!

I would also guess (that's what I'd do anyway) they are communicating outside electronic means. I don't buy all that stuff about sat phones, etcetera. What's the hurry anyway?

At the outside, they would be using (also) electronic means of communication the old fashioned way: to trigger events through innocuous code - rather than exchange info.

Excusa. Me.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Man what a masterful military analysis. Insurgents and terrorists with guns, bombs, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons are really just ghosts so there is no point in our arming our troops as best as possible and teaching them counter-insurgency warfare tactics.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh. Is this what you've been doing all this time in Iraq?

Coulda fooled me.

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you need to be teaching this stuff as a guest lecturer at the War College.

[/ QUOTE ] Some green berets were on the right path when they discarded their uniforms, stopped shaving, stopped washing, started learning the local lingo, and went a-hunting.

The powers that be soon put an end to that nonsense in Afghanistan, last I heard.

Re: I Need Your Pagers. All Y\'All.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy all that stuff about sat phones, etcetera

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you dont "buy all that stuff" doesnt mean it isnt true. It is most assuredly true. And just because they know about NSA ops doesnt mean they have the ability to combat them. The NSA techniques are quite applicable against terrorist organizations such as AQ.

Re: zipo file
 

>> Hey, where you been? I'd flame your little behind some more<<

LOL - more delusions boy? Your little booty has been publicly spanked cherry-red (glowing like Rudolph's nose - a special holiday simile) so many times that your masochism puts Madonna's to shame.

But because it's Christmas time (and hey, Jesus is *the* reason for the season), I'll show you some Christian charity and let you slide this time.

Re: May the gods
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we stop fighting the war, it will still be fought against us.


[/ QUOTE ]

The war against terrorism, i.e. what you called the war for Natiional Survival (choke, gasp), is not a war in the sense that wars have been fought thus far in history. That idiot of a president sends, as is his wont, gunships, tomahawks and aircraft carriers to do battle ...with ghosts.

Terrorists have no country whose frontiers you can invade; no capital whose capture would cripple their efforts; no industrial or agrarian infrastructure whose demolition would choke them from raw materials; no CCC hubs which can be neutralized.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, but Cyrus, terrorists do gain greatly by state actors lending them various kinds of support. al-Qaeda was freer to train and plot, when unmolested some years ago in Afghanistan; and today numerous terrorist groups benefit greatly via the shadowy support of Iran and Syria.

So, where should we be cutting off their supports? To an extent, we are already cutting off some of their financial supports; and intercepting their communications, and continuing to catch more of their lietenants: the terrorists would be further yet crippled if Iran and Syria were no longer using the powers of their governments and militaries to clandestinely lend support to these bad guys. So, regime change in Iran and Syria is necessary (for that reason, and for a few other reasons as well).

Does regime change for Iran and Syria need to come externally, as in Iraq? Well, hopefully not; an internal overthrow would be much better. However, if Iran keeps up the BS, and gets really close to nuclear weaponry, all bets are off: limited strikes might lead to a larger war which might lead to regime change in Iran. Which, of course, would be a good end result.

The timing for such might be propitious, too: by Spring, Iraq should be much more stable, while Iran may be approaching the no-turning-back point in the nuclear cycle; strikes on Iran have the potential to be pragmatically on the table about that time. So, we'll just wait and see. In the meantime, Ahmadinejad-al-Crazy will go on spouting vitriol, if he doesn't manage to get himself assassinated first. But Springtime really isn't that far off.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

Party Rocks.

It is your officers job to make you think what you do, if you dont then the war on the ground well it just isnt feasible anymore.

Men have to be motivated to face the prospect of stoping a bullet or making friends with an IED.

80% of Officers ranked Captain or above do not think this is a war of survival.

Grunts think one thing oficers think another. That is why grunts are grunts and officers are officers. Facts of life.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

[ QUOTE ]

80% of Officers ranked Captain or above do not think this is a war of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

The war in Iraq , in isolation, is not be a war of survival for the US. However, the war against Islamic jihadism/terrorism most certainly is a war of survival for the US--as it is for the UK, Australia, and Israel as well--and even for Europe, whether they know it yet or not.

Zipo as Gift from the Magi
 

[ QUOTE ]
More delusions boy?

[/ QUOTE ] Ah I see you are not in the same generous mood as I am. Fair enough. We can replay our little tiff any time you want.

If I recall correctly you were blabbering about proving a negative [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img], after you went off on a rage that I claimed that your abhorrence of the crimes committed by the Nazis was related to your supposed support of Israel". No such thing, boy, so relax that sphincter. (My diagnosis so far has been that you are an otherwise intelligent and informed person who's suffering from bouts of paranoia. And I would not rule out dementia. You can spell that dyslexia, if you'd feel better.)

But in the spirit of Christmas and our Lord the Savior's approaching birth, I choose to quote your best offerings thus far this month. Merry f*cking holidays.

[ QUOTE ]
I personally have no problem with legitimate historical scholarship. Secondly, criminalizing 'revisionism' is a dangerous and misguided policy, it may lead to criminalizing legitimate historical inquiry. I prefer to let people make their own arguments freely and let them be judged in the court of public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
The war on islamic terror is real. It is also a fact that the executive is taking advantage of this reality to greatly expand their powers in areas unrelated to the war on terror.

We need to keep paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
If for some reason the current system is too unwieldy, slow, or 'bureaucratic', why not change or adjust the law to streamline the process? No attempt was made to do this. The president simply, unilaterally, decided that law did not apply to him. Plenty of people - patriots, liberals, conservatives - are deeply troubled by this development.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW : Insurgency vs terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[sarcasticallyInsurgents and terrorists with guns, bombs, mortars and anti-aircraft weapons are really just ghosts so there is no point in our arming our troops as best as possible and teaching them counter-insurgency warfare tactics.

[/ QUOTE ] It would be wrong for the political or military planners to equate in their minds insurgents with terrorists. What you describe above are insurgents, i.e. guerillas. Counter-insurgency warfare is altogether different than "regular" warfare, i.e. a clash between organised armies in the field of battle. (And need I repeat that the U.S. seems to have learned very little from its first-hand counter-insurgency warfare it conducted in places such as Central America and Vietnam? Even in counter-insurgency, the U.S. is behaving like a all -pwoerful giant with a peanut-sized mind.)

And BTW, when the insurgents are using seemingly "terrorist tactics", i.e. blowing up a Kabul discotheque full of civilians (oftentimes intentionally blowing themselves up in the process), this does NOT make the fight against them a fight against terrorism!

No, personally, I would be more concerned with modern terrorism itself. And by that I refer to large scale attacks against civilian targets, possibly targets at home (the home of those perceived as aggressors by the terrorists, e.g. Washington, Manchester, Rome, etc), attacks executed by relatively cheap and small means, using low-technology techniques for communication, command and control, e.g. mail drops, music signals, etc.

Against that enemy, the fight is extremely tougher than fighting the most ferocious insurgent in Afghanistan or Iraq! The importance of intelligence cannot be over-estimated. And that comes in the same package as co-operation across nations and continents among the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of all those committed to combat terror. Which, in turn, precludes unilateralism, arrogance and over-simplification -- but, instead, needs/depends on co-ordination, diplomacy, a dose of humility and a lot of thorough & complex analysis.

However, a lot of people in the United States confuse patience for inaction; controlled aggressiveness for reluctance to fight; and thorough analysis for nerdiness. Good poker players are supposed to know better.

Re: BTW : Insurgency vs terrorism
 

You are making an artificial distinction here regarding terrorists and insurgents. There are not two different types of enemy here, but only one which uses different tactics in different situations against their enemies. Al-Queada makes this clear since its operatives both carried out the 9/11 attacks, and also carry out guerilla actions in Afghanistan. Same thing with various palestinian groups that have both carried out homocide bombings in Israel, and also fought small pitched battles/ambushes with small Israeli military units.

Re: BTW : Insurgency vs terrorism
 

i think there is a distinction between insurgents and terrorists, but that's neither here nor there for me atm.

A questin to all those pro war, could any iraqi (with who knows what ideology) legitametely oppose US power in Iraq?

What extent of opposition would be acceptable, protest? civil disobedience? violence?

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

I mean the president's professional critics and Michael Mooreheads.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I do know about Osama Bin Laden (head of 'AQ') is that Ronald Regan provided material support to terrorists including OBL in Afganistan during the 1980's

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. We also provided the same type of support to Iraq at the same time. Gas was 75 cents a gallon, the Bears won the superbowl, lots of things happened in the 80s which don't mean a hell of a lot today.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were kinda starting to win me over until this fell out of your mouth. There are so many ways to debunk this tripe I don't even know where to begin. I definitely want our government and military to be held accountable for prior actions, and I have a hard time believing that some in our armed forces (roughly 80% of them, supposedly) don't think this.

"So Saddam, you gassed your own people in the 80's"

"Yeah, so? The Bears won the superbowl in the 80's. What's your point?"

Re: BTW : Insurgency vs terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are making an artificial distinction here regarding terrorists and insurgents. There are not two different types of enemy here, but only one which uses different tactics in different situations against their enemies. Al-Queada makes this clear since its operatives both carried out the 9/11 attacks, and also carry out guerilla actions in Afghanistan. Same thing with various palestinian groups that have both carried out homocide bombings in Israel, and also fought small pitched battles/ambushes with small Israeli military units.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the label of artificiality fits your argument rather than mine. Let me elaborate a bit:

Qaeda will NOT stage a "pitched battle" between itself and American or other organised military forces. I would stake a lot of money on that claim. Whatever "pitched battles" we are seeing in places such as Iraq are mostly the work of nationalist Iraqis, whose passion could be fuelled also by religious fervour. Or it could be the other way around, nationalism fuelling religion. It's also the case that Qaeda aids and promotes the Iraqi insurgency directly. Finally, Qaeda's fighters could be getting "first hand" experience in drawing blood, just like they did in their anti-Soviet struggle in 1980s Afghanistan!

But the threat right now, and ever since 9/11, to the safety and security of the United States of America is NOT -- let me be very emphatic here-- N O T from "pitched battles" by small groups of armed angry men against American military units, N O T from bombs detonating in places frequented or traveled by Americans, N O T by assassinations of American officials and N O T by suicide bombers carrying out "small-time" missions, such as killing 20 Iraqi policemen or 5 U.S. Marines.

All those confrontations, in one variety or other, and though they are indeed causing harm, sometimes big harm, the United States, like the modern imperialist superpower that it is, has been facing (or facing down) regularly since the end of World War II ! Americans, whether full-scale military or just "military advisers", have been dealing with insurgents all over the world every year, eg Latin America, (and those people were being labeled terrorists only for political reasons). They have also been dealing with terrorists, eg November 17, for decades and while that was a hassle, it was not a threat to the safety and security, etc etc.

The threat concerns major attacks carried out by islamic terrorists on American home ground.

And that threat needs a focused and specific policy to be confronted and eliminated (or, at least, minimized as much as possible). The war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq is insignificant, to the point of being almost irrelevant, in the war against terror. Some argue that it is even counter-productive! (E.g. draining of resources; getting tied down in one place; alienating allies and friends in the process; losing the PR battle worldwide; etc.)

Re: BTW : Insurgency vs terrorism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever "pitched battles" we are seeing in places such as Iraq are mostly the work of nationalist Iraqis, whose passion could be fuelled also by religious fervour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, Cyrus. Nearly all of the attacks now in Iraq are the work of foreign jihadists and foreign terrorists. And in the recent elections, those Sunni elements who had previously warned against voting and threatened voters, now themselves voted, and also even even offered to help protect voting Iraqis from being attacked.

M as in Mindboggler
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nearly all of the [insurgency] attacks now in Iraq are the work of foreign jihadists and foreign terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ] This is so wrong I cannot even begin to respond.

If your purpose is to boggle minds, you are succeeding.

Bringing Cyrus Up To Date
 

Cyrus, obviously you are not completely up-to-date, so I'll fill you in: very recently the diehard Sunni remnants have encouraged Iraqis to vote and even protected them while voting. Meanwhile, Saudi terrorists continue to blow themselves up in Iraq; and in fact, the Saudi element now comprises the largest contingent of suicide bombers in Iraq. Attacks by Baathist remnants are now (very recently, that is) less frequent than attacks by foreign fighters.

To assist you in getting up to speed, Cyrus (after all, it is Christmastime), I've cut-and-pasted an excerpt for your reading pleasure:


(excerpt)December 19, 2005, 8:08 a.m.
"The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq.

By Mark Steyn

Hands up, everyone who thinks Iraq’s a quagmire.

Not the Iraqi people: According to the latest polls, 70 percent think “life is good,” and 69 percent are optimistic that things will get even better in the year ahead. For purposes of comparison, they took a similar poll in Europe a while back: In France, 29 percent said they were optimistic about the future; in Germany, 15 percent. Sixty-three percent of Iraqis say they feel “very safe” in their own neighborhoods, which is more than the residents of Clichy-sous-Bois can say.

Well, okay, those cheerful Iraqis are probably Shiites and Kurds and whatnot. How about the Sunnis? For a small minority group that held a disproportionate and repressive grip on power for decades, they’ve been getting a more solicitous press from Western “liberals” than the white Rhodesians or South Africa’s National party ever got. But it turns out, after their strategically disastrous decision to stay home in last January’s vote, the Sunnis are participating in Iraq’s democratic process in ever greater numbers.

Oh, okay, so the Shiites and Kurds and Sunnis are feeling chipper, but in the broader Middle East the disastrous neocon invasion has inflamed moderate Arab opinion against America. Well, it’s true the explosive Arab street finally exploded the other day — with 200,000 Jordanians protesting in Amman, waving angry banners and yelling, “Burn in hell, Rumsfeld,” and, “You are a coward, Bush.” Whoops, my mistake: They were yelling, “Burn in hell, Zarqawi,” and, “You are a coward, Zarqawi.” If you want to hear someone yelling, “You are a coward, Bush,” you’ve got to go to Cindy Sheehan’s stakeout. And, in fairness to the network news divisions, it may be because so many of their camera crews have taken up permanent residence at the otherwise underpopulated Camp Cindy that they were unable to cover what was the largest demonstration against terrorism ever seen on the streets of the Middle East.

Oh, well. So the Shiites and Kurds and Sunni Iraqis and the Arab street are all on board, but come on, what about the insurgents? Everybody knows they’re winning . . . but, er, apparently they don’t. The Baathist diehard insurgents have split from the foreign al-Qaeda insurgents. While the latter denounced the Iraqi election as “a Satanic project,” the Saddamite remnants urged Sunnis to participate and said they’d protect polling stations from attacks by the foreign terrorists so that citizens could vote for their approved candidates (the leftover bits of Uday and Qusay, now running on the Psychotic Dictatorship Nostalgia Party ticket). This division between the foreign nutcakes and the domestic nutcakes is the biggest strategic split over the insurgency since Joe Lieberman respectfully distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi. . ."(end excerpt)

http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/...0512190808.asp

Wishful thinking, again
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously you are not completely up-to-date. To assist you in getting up to speed (after all, it is Christmastime), I've cut-and-pasted an excerpt for your reading pleasure:
[Mark Steyn op-ed piece quoted]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you invoke a Mark Steyn editorial as evidence for your absurd claim that "nearly all of the [insurgency] attacks now in Iraq are the work of foreign jihadists and foreign terrorists".

What can I say.

Here is the news, straight up :


[ QUOTE ]
CNN, December 23, 2005
Eight Iraqi soldiers were killed and 19 wounded Friday when gunmen attacked a checkpoint north of Baquba, on al-Adhaim highway.
<font color="white"> . </font>
In addition, three unidentified bodies were found about 9 a.m. Friday in the al-Sina'ai neighborhood. The three had been shot to death.
<font color="white"> . </font>
In al-Khalis town, about 25 kilometers north of Baquba, another body was found about 11 a.m. That person, who remained unidentified, had also been shot to death, the official said.
<font color="white"> . </font>
On Thursday, gunmen killed four police commandos and wounded six others at an Iraqi police checkpoint in southern Baghdad.
<font color="white"> . </font>
About an hour later, gunmen kidnapped three Iraqi women in southwestern Baghdad. The women, who work in the Green Zone, were abducted when the gunmen stopped their vehicle.


[/ QUOTE ]


Goddamn Saudis are everywhere. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Wishful thinking, again
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you invoke a Mark Steyn editorial as evidence for your absurd claim that "nearly all of the [insurgency] attacks now in Iraq are the work of foreign jihadists and foreign terrorists".

What can I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

There seems to be a never-ending cadre of posters on this forum who delight in posting editorials as evidence for what they're arguing. I don't think I'll ever understand it. I'm not sure if it's just some futile attempt to give weight to their argument, borne out of laziness to check actual sources - or if they're just blissfully un-aware of what the hell an editorial is, and why it's not proof of anything.

Anyway, here comes the MMMMMM "Waaaahhhh!!! I said nearly all attacks! Stop misquoting me!!!!! This is a vicious attack on me that grossly distorts what I said!!!!!!!!!"

From the horses mouth
 

The fact is that the baathists and nationalists called a truce for the duration of the elections. They are using bullets and ballots (that is a quote from some report I read). However, I have linked in a couple of links for your perusal.

Arabic news

Here is an extract as translated by Juan Cole (www.juancole.com).



[ QUOTE ]
Al-Hayat says that the "secular" guerrillas say that they had declared a 3-day truce so that Sunni Arabs could put representatives in parliament, but that they would now return to attacking US and coalition troops. It is suggestive that the two Sunni politicians doing best in this round are Adnan Dulaimi and Salih Mutlak, who may well be the Gerry Adams of Iraq.

It quotes Abu Maysar (age 52), a former member of the Baath Party and a militia leader in Fallujah as saying, "We will continue our armed struggle as long as the Occupation and the agents it brought with it continue in power." The secular guerrillas adopted a deliberate policy of encouraging a Sunni vote, and they pledged to protect the voters from reprisals by the Muslim extremists who opposed the electoral process. Abu Maysar maintained that the current Iraqi government is determined to wipe out the former Baath Party members. He said that if they just tried to play parliamentary politics, they would be like lambs to slaughter.

A local leader in the Army of Muhammad (made up of former Baath intelligence operatives) said, "This does not mean we are giving up our jihad. We consider that we will be, in the coming days, committing violence against the Americans and their supporters in the Iraqi army."




[/ QUOTE ]

Here is another report quoting the same arabic source.

Asia Times

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, former members of the Ba'ath Party and other militia leaders have lost no time asserting that despite the Sunni participation in the elections, their armed resistance to the American military occupation would be resumed. (Since the elections, 10 Iraqis, including five police officers and an American, have been killed.)

Al-Hayat quoted a Ba'ath communique condemning the elections as an American plot to divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and vowing that resistance would not end until US troops left Iraqi soil. So much for the delicate distinction that American spokesmen were making between "Ba'athists" and "Saddamists"

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, you may wish to reassess your reading list, moving form propaganda to news and from opinion to analysis.

You are free to find your own Arabic transaltions of the referred to link as well.

Edit: Oops, I meant to reply to 6M's "post"

Re: Wishful thinking, again
 

Wrong again, Cyrus [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -- that editorial was not invoked as supporting evidence; rather, it was just to help to bring you up to speed! The Iraqi people apparently have a much more positive view of the situation than you do.

Re: Bringing Cyrus Up To Date
 

"69 percent are optimistic that things will get even better in the year ahead. For purposes of comparison, they took a similar poll in Europe a while back: In France, 29 percent said they were optimistic about the future; in Germany, 15 percent."

I'm enjoying the debate, but just thought I'd stick my 2 cents in to point out that this is natural. If there were suicide bombers blowing people up every day in France or Germany, there'd probably be a higher percentage of people there who felt things would be not as bad next year. And if they weren't doing it presently in Iraq, there'd probably be a higher percentage of people who would not have a reason for feeling things would be better next year.

More on point, does anyone have any evidence about what percentage of the insurgents are outside agitators and what percentage are domestic? One of Murtha's points was that he believed the president is confusing the insurgency with terrorism. Is he correct?

Re: Bringing Cyrus Up To Date
 

[ QUOTE ]
More on point, does anyone have any evidence about what percentage of the insurgents are outside agitators and what percentage are domestic?

[/ QUOTE ]

The much higher percentage was/is (at least until very recently) domestic insurgents. HOWEVER, most *[/i]very recent[/i]* attacks have been committed by foreign terrorists. This is the point I was trying to make to Cyrus.

[ QUOTE ]
One of Murtha's points was that he believed the president is confusing the insurgency with terrorism. Is he correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has a point but it is a bit of an oversimplification. And the more recent developments: of former Saddam remnants voting, and even protecting other Iraqs who voted, is a very sharp development, which is possibly indicative of a pivotal tide shift.

Cyrus vanquished
 

[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, most *very recent* attacks have been committed by foreign terrorists. This is the point I was trying to make to Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. During the 3 day truce declared by the insurgents/baathists/nationalists for the voting perion, indeed any attacks were likely not their work. They had declared a temporary truce. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

However, that has ended.

So dear, dear, Cyrus remember -- exactitude in analysis and writing is very important. For three days out of the last couple of years the foreign jihadists were doing almost all the bombings.

Re: This board makes me laugh (a reality check)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Over 80% of people like me agree that he’s doing a pretty good job based on the military vote in the last election. I don’t think he’s Abe Lincoln but he isn’t the devil either. Do you think 80% of the people like me are just too stupid to know better, or do we have an informed opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else spot the circular reasoning here?