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.

[ 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.

"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.

[andyfox]

Hey Peter,

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

[andyfox]

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

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

Thanks.

[BluffTHIS!]

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. "

[zipo]

>>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

[zipo]

>>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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[zipo]

>>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.