|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
So, I take it we agree that Bush has not secured most of Iraq and its borders. Let�s call this what it is: a military failure. A competent commander in chief would not get bogged down in a guerilla war in a hostile region.
Iraq is different and no amount of troops could come close to stemming the inrush of wackos that are making their way into that region
Generals Shinseki and Zinni and many others disagree with you. So does Senator John McCain. And apparently so do the majority of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (let me know if you need to see the latest reports on that). They all are faulting Bush (and Rumsfeld) for going in with too few troops to do the job.
The "inrush of wackos" was forseeable and should have been prepared for. It seems you are using it as an excuse for Bush's failure to provide secure conditions for elections and the establishment of a new government, but most of us see it as a damn good reason for not stepping into this trap in the first place.
Bush has not set forth a plausible plan for quelling the insurgency and establishing order. Face the facts: the so-called "government" of Iraq is trapped in the Green Zone and frightened to even show its face in public. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future unless there is a major change either in the insurgents or the US military strength there. It is not, as you say, a matter of just needing more time.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Let me put this in as simple and easily understood terms as I possibly can:
IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE.
Really? Saddam managed to do it. He had the place so secured that we couldn't even get an CIA agent in there to see what was going on.
Time to go. More later.
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Generals Shinseki and Zinni and many others disagree with you. So does Senator John McCain. And apparently so do the majority of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (let me know if you need to see the latest reports on that). They all are faulting Bush (and Rumsfeld) for going in with too few troops to do the job.
Don't take their thoughts out of context. When they are talking about "securing Iraq", they are talking about key strategic areas and populated cities, not thousands of miles of sand, plains and mountains. I will agree that we did go in with too few troops to secure some of the key areas of concern (nuclear waste sites, chem labs, etc.), and this is compounded with the fact that we disbanded the Iraqi Army into the general population.
I will NEVER agree that we could ever have had enough troops to stop the influx of Islamic extremists into the country.
I would LOVE to see Rumsfeld out of the next administration for this, as he micromanaged much of the logistics of the Iraqi war.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The "inrush of wackos" was forseeable and should have been prepared for. It seems you are using it as an excuse for Bush's failure to provide secure conditions for elections and the establishment of a new government, but most of us see it as a damn good reason for not stepping into this trap in the first place.
I agree we have been unprepared to a degree, though with our concerns at the time, there were more reasons to invade Iraq than not to BY FAR.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Bush has not set forth a plausible plan for quelling the insurgency and establishing order. Face the facts: the so-called "government" of Iraq is trapped in the Green Zone and frightened to even show its face in public. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future unless there is a major change either in the insurgents or the US military strength there. It is not, as you say, a matter of just needing more time.
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating continuing on with the same or less number of troops; we certainly need more on the ground. At the same time, getting the Iraqis trained and doing their own work in regard to security is important as well. We've made some serious steps in that direction.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Really? Saddam managed to do it. He had the place so secured that we couldn't even get an CIA agent in there to see what was going on.
This is utterly and patently false. We had agents working with the INC, the Iraqi Kurds in the North and I believe we even had folks in the South from '92 onwards.
The problem is that we couldn't get folks in his palaces and other high security areas. Even Scott Ritter, one of the former UN weapon inspection heads complained that CIA agents were infiltrating his group and compromising his mission.
There are numerous journals, news sites and articles that discuss this if you wish for further proof.
Anything else I can address for you?
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
I've gone over my posts again and it has come to my attention that I have been a little coarse in places. For that I do apologize.  Political discussions of this nature bring out the "Genghis Khan" in me from time to time, especially on this topic. While I didn't go completely overboard, I did get a little testy in spots.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
No need to apologize, I thought everything was under control. My patience has been tested all throughout this election cycle, and for that reason I am glad it will be over in 8 long days. I can't wait to get back to "normal life", when every discussion I have isn't about politics.
And I'm sure in your head you're pronouncing it "Jenjis Khan". If not, I'll be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
I thought it was gang gus.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Let me put this in as simple and easily understood terms as I possibly can:
IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Really? Saddam managed to do it. He had the place so secured that we couldn't even get an CIA agent in there to see what was going on.
This is utterly and patently false. We had agents working with the INC, the Iraqi Kurds in the North and I believe we even had folks in the South from '92 onwards.
Are you actually trying to deny that Saddam had control over the territory of Iraq? If so, you are totally alone in that opinion.
By all accounts, Saddam secured the borders of Iraq pretty much in the same way (and with the same level of security, or better) as most countries. Please provide evidence to the contrary, or just go ahead and admit you were incorrect when you said "IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE."
And while you're at it, just go ahead and admit the point that naturally follows: Bush could have secured Iraq, and he failed to do so.
And don't respond that "PERFECT SECURITY IN IRAQ IS IMPOSSIBLE." That is beside the point, a.k.a. dodging the issue again. You know I am talking about REASONABLE security (the kind that allows government to work in virtually all sectors and regions, and prevents daily bombings and kidnappings, and encourages foreign investment (which is now almost entirely absent).
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Are you actually trying to deny that Saddam had control over the territory of Iraq? If so, you are totally alone in that opinion.
Are you then arguing Saddam had control of the Ansar al Islam terror training camp in Kurdish Iraq? Sanctuary of Al-Zarkawi after he fled Afganistan.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The fact that the insurgents are not in control of all the remote areas and the borders does not make the occupation a success.
Nor does it make it an epic failure, either.
It doesn't? How can we acheive democracy, a stable economy, a functioning government, or any of Bush's other goals unless Iraq is physically secure? How can we acheive that without controlling the insurgents? Ordinary Iraqis are afraid to apply for jobs with the government (virtually the only decent jobs that exist), because they are afraid of being killed. Unemployment is rampant. The economy is dead, because foreign investors see there is no security (as you know, dozens of foreigners and hundreds of their Iraqi employees have been killed). The occupation is an epic failure by any practical measure, and even under Bush's own stated goals.
Forget about practical measures and Bush's goals: What about our MORAL responsibility to the millions of innocent Iraqis who need a secure place to live and work? To them, the lawlessness and terrorist groups we are allowing must seem as bad as Baathist dictatorship!
So close your eyes and refuse to admit how screwed up Bush's occupation of Iraq is. Don't look past the Bush administration's spin of the chaos there. The rest of us will look at the facts and think for ourselves.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
As you know, the only "secure" area is the Green Zone, and even that is questionable lately, considering the recent attacks there.
Welcome to the new face of military occupation in the 21st century. Somalia was a harbinger of this (though not technically an occupation), Afghanistan a potent reminder and Iraq a full-fledged lesson in it. We are no longer dealing with societies of cohesive, highly educated and motivated individuals that are self-contained in a geographical area that get the picture when they've been soundly "whipped".
We are dealing with fractured groups (some of which are lead by extremists), all jockeying for positions of political significance and trying to maintain or build power. We are also dealing with a population that has been suppressed for DECADES and that is in the throes of massive economic and political turmoil, that is being stabilized slowly. We are dealing with extremists external to Iraq coming in and exacerbating matters that much worse when they get a chance to.
Yes, JaTo, those are mostly true reasons why the occupation is extraordinarily difficult. But they do not JUSTIFY Bush's decision to invade or his failure in the occupation. Bush was responsible for succeeding IN THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST THERE, not in some imaginary more ideal conditions. Why do you struggle so hard to excuse Bush's failure? Why won't you hold him accountable for his decisions?
Look: if your enemy has developed a new strategy (terror, an international funding base, guerilla tactics) that has rendered your old modus operandi (military occupation) ineffective, then you have three choices: 1) come up with a counter-strategy that gives you back the advantage; or 2) don't do a military occupation there without worldwide (UN) support and overwhelming force; or 3) do a virtually unilateral military occupation, but suffer unnecessary personnel losses, drain your financial resources, and fail to secure the country enough to acheive anything of benefit. Bush has chosen option number 3. That option is a failure.
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Sure, lots of agencies said they thought Saddam had WMDs. But most agencies also admitted that they had no solid recent intelligence, and that they could only really guess. The CIA was so badly burned by 9/11 (and so pressured by the Bush Adminstration) that they were overstating the threat dramatically. Bush chose to ignore the thinness of the CIA's evidence. That was a huge mistake.
Then EVERY Senator needs to be hit over the head with this, as I cannot recall but a smattering of a few that didn't see Iraq as an acceptable risk in light of their lack of cooperation over a decade and especially in the days past 9/11.
You say that "every Senator" was wrong, so I assume you are conceding that Bush was wrong too. But it's best just to come out and say so. Here, it looks like you hiding it, and that tells us that you are not dealing in truth, but in spin.
And it's wrong to tar the Senate with the same brush as Bush. The Senate customarily defers to the administrative branch on foreign policy (that's not good, it's just a fact), and they had a right to assume that Bush actually had the solid "slam dunk" evidence he and Rumsfeld and Cheney said they had. The Bush administration (and its intelligence agencies) spun like mad to mislead the Senate, and the nation, about the threat in Iraq. Blaming the Senate for believing some of the hype may be justified. But the Senate was not responsible for deciding to invade. The Seante is empowered only to "advise and consent". The Senate clearly understood that it was strategically important not to diminish the president's bargaining power, and to show solidarity with the administration's efforts to back Saddam down. It was a smart strategic move, even if they did not want a war to be started anytime soon. They almost all thought that the resolution was a way to force Saddam into compliance, and that Bush would not actually use force (due to the thinness of the evidence of WMDs at that time). They expected Bush to use his power responsibly.
Originally posted by JaTo:
No, the mistake would have been if Bush had told Tenet to kiss off after he said that the WMD case for invading Iraq was a "slam dunk". One doesn't typically naysay their DCI and I challenge you to find a US President who has wholesale discounted what their intelligence arm has provided them.
You say the chief executive should not weigh the evidence himself and draw his own conclusions, but instead he should defer to the Intelligence Director (DCI)? Ah, finally I see exactly why we disagree so starkly. You think the president should be able to palm off blame for any poor decision he makes. You think he should not be held accountable. You think he should be able to claim that he deferred to the DCI, even though that would mean the president is abdicating his sworn responsibility to make such decisions. It would be effectively turning over crucial national decisions to an unelected bureaucrat. In essence, you don't really agree with the the way our system of representative government was designed to work, at least when blame falls on your candidate.
Originally posted by JaTo:
The FACT stands that there existed NO way of knowing whether Hussein still possessed WMD without invasion. We invaded, and as it turns out, our intelligence seemed to be wrong (apparently driven by the lies that Hussein's lieutenants told him and his rampant fears over Iran).
I hope you are not saying that our ignorance of Saddams capabilites was a legitimate justification for Bush's decision to invade. I hope you would agree that our intel limitations are largely our own responsibility, and we can't invade countries based on a lack of evidence, but only on the presence of sufficient evidence. Even if that is what you intended to say, your post was written to as to mislead the reader to believe otherwise.
2000 Contour LX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Are you actually trying to deny that Saddam had control over the territory of Iraq? If so, you are totally alone in that opinion.
The UN would dispute it, as we had a fair portion of his country locked down into a "no fly" zone. Northern Iraq, which has been predominantly Kurdish, was anything BUT under his control. Again, the CIA would disagree that he has it locked down as well.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
By all accounts, Saddam secured the borders of Iraq pretty much in the same way (and with the same level of security, or better) as most countries.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry here, this is so absurd.
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Please provide evidence to the contrary,
I'm grabbing sites and links and it hasn't taken too long at all.
It's called the Autonomous Region:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/sover/emerg/2004/0620kurdsadvancing.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-iraq.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,920048,00.html
Hussein has had little control over these regions, even when he was gassing and bombing the Hell out of them.
To your question if the CIA ever had agents in Iraq:
http://www.ecn.org/golfo/eng/articles/doc33eng.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-02.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/21/103502.shtml
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/tenet_02-05-04.html
the key piece in the last article is: "Tenet agreed with Kay's comments that the United States didn't have enough human spies in Iraq and acknowledged that the CIA did not penetrate Saddam's inner circle."
Did I NOT say this in so many words? There were CIA agents in Iraq, but not nearly enough, thanks to the HumInt cuts that that region had seen during the mid to late '90s...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
or just go ahead and admit you were incorrect when you said "IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE."
Bremer's statement on securing Iraq's borders when he was head of the CPA in Iraq:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040315_Border_Remarks_31503.html
and a Brigadier General saying that doing this is impossible, as well as others:
http://www.iraq.net/printarticle2639.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3389251.stm
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_53_1_eng.txt
Key thoughts from last article: "ut Kimmitt told a press conference the day after the bombings that full control over Iraq's borders was impossible.
"The problem of terrorism is not one that can just be stopped by putting a wall a mile high around a 1,700 kilometre border," he said."
and again here:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040313_Mar13_KimmittSenor.html
"And on your third question about a reasonable expectation of what can be accomplished in terms of border control, border sealing, I think a better term to use would be "border monitoring." We have the capacity and the capability to monitor the borders. As you said, at 3,600 kilometers, it would be impossible to control and seal the borders of Iraq."
I won't give my Jane's logon out, but there exist many more articles there that discuss both topics...
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
And while you're at it, just go ahead and admit the point that naturally follows: Bush could have secured Iraq, and he failed to do so.
And don't respond that "PERFECT SECURITY IN IRAQ IS IMPOSSIBLE." That is beside the point, a.k.a. dodging the issue again. You know I am talking about REASONABLE security (the kind that allows government to work in virtually all sectors and regions, and prevents daily bombings and kidnappings, and encourages foreign investment (which is now almost entirely absent).
Reasonable security is what we are striving for, as this takes time and it IS going to take more troops.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
