|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Good outline of premise...flawed analysis
The documented inability over many years of weapons inspectors to find anything that was not in an above ground bunker (possibly aided by the suggestions we had that France and perhaps Russian officials were "tipping off" the Iraqis as to inspector destinations), coupled with the vast size of Iraq suggests that knowing the location suggests that it is unlikely we would know all or even most of the locations of presumed WMD.
The introduction of references to France and Russia is a red herring; your assertion here is basically that the locations of the WMD were unknown. This in no way renders my analysis flawed â??? rather it supports an important element of my premise.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I think what was "patently clear to military strategists" was that we would need to do one on one interrogations with captured Iraqi's and those who stepped foreward after the threat of Saddam has been removed.
This would appear to be one way to describe what actually happened â?¦ and so by definition of the actual outcome (ie: no WMD found, no verification of their existence) versus the agreed upon objective, you are basically saying that so far the action in Iraq has been a military failure.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
That threat, BTW is not fully removed until the new government is more firmly established...many Iraqis are waiting to see who wins before committing.
Which threat? The threat of WMD are fully removed when the weapons themselves are firmly in the possession of the U.S. Army or a friendly 3-rd party, or are proven to never have existed. That none of these conditions is yet met, and that the weapons, if they exist, are no longer in the control of Saddam, is an exacerbation of the condition.
The rest of the world had some ability to put pressure on Saddam and had some degree of ability to limit any use of WMD he might consider. As a direct result of the military action we no longer have even that. Analysis intact, IMO.
Quote:
I would argue we did largely prove a lack of ongoing WMD production and we defined the dual use capacity much more accurately and completely than inspectors would have in this timeframe. Prexisting pre 1991 WMD while still unaccounted for are probably degraded to a substantial degree. These would be the LEAST likely WMD that inspectors would have found as they are more likely to be burried.
To be honest, Iâ??m not sure I understand these references here â?¦ but what I think you mean is that there is some proof now that there are no new WMD and that although we havenâ??t found them yet, the old WMD probably do exist and are probably buried and therefore not a threat.
Although I believe this to be irrelevant to my analysis, it is an interesting wrinkle. Assuming this is true (please provide your sources) then one must consider whether or not this information was part of the intelligence used to make the decision for military action. It doesnâ??t seem likely as this would seem to negate the immediate nature of any threat associated with Iraqi WMD. If it was true, then that would suggest that the administration did seriously mislead everyone about the nature of the threat.
In any event, this in no way refutes my assertion that a properly planned and prosecuted military action intended to remove the threat of WMD should have most certainly included proper intelligence as to their location before being initiated.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
As I said above, any chance of finding these rests with Iraqi informant sources, which we will have better access to with Saddam and his government eliminated.
Even though I believe this assertion to be highly doubtful (any chance of discovery rests with informants) even if it is true, does it seem logical in the context of military planning that gaining access to these informants should include the invasion of a country thought to have WMD?
Quote:
I think your expectations are unrealistic, not accounting for variables (ie UN corruption) and use an overly compressed time frame.
The introduction of a reference to alleged U.N. corruption is a red herring and irrelevant to my analysis. In terms of the timeframe I will agree that there is still some possibility that WMD will be found, or their new owners identified or their non-existence proven, however, the administration doesnâ??t seem to be making this suggestion anymore. That in no way however, refutes my assertions regarding the decision to invade without knowing where the WMD were.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
How well even basic strategies worked & objectives of wars are reached is simply not possible for many years, often the war being concluded for years.
I suggest you are confusing objectives. In the context of the agreed on objective re WMD, I disagree with your assertion.
Everything I've read about military strategy suggests that planning for specific military actions leaves virtually nothing to chance, nothing unaccounted for including clearly defined objective(s), contingencies for all possible complications; everything from â??getting inâ? to â??getting outâ? including time frame, resources required and a clear set of success metrics to know when the job was done.
Your description is more appropriate to a very large military action with a socio-political objective such as liberating a country, where a political objective might be met despite the failure of any number of military objectives. IE; Even though it was not the basis for invasion, the liberation of Iraq will likely be successful eventually, regardless of whether WMD are found or not.
Quote:
War is always fluid, mistakes alwys made on both sides, intelligence is alwys wrong in every war ever fought.
Agreed â??? all the more reason to make sure the military plans leave little to no opportunity for a vastly superior force to fail, and that it remains the last resort.
Sorry - but no where near convinced my analysis is flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Quote:
Dan, I was not talking about Pentagon war plans, which I suppose they have for every country on Earth (updated annually, too!). I was talking about the POLICY in favor of unilateral invasion of Iraq, which was created and nurtured in the neo-con think-tanks mentioned earlier. Let me know if you want the background info on Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice etc., and their prior careers as developers of these neo-con Iraq war policies in the 1990s.
If you have some info that is not from some over the top liberal hit squad, then I'd like to see it.
Here are some articles that cover the neo-conservative think tanks and institutions that promoted a radical and agressive foreign policy (including the unilateral US invasion of Iraq) in the 1990s, and which provided the majority of Bush's closest advisors (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, Libby, Kristol, etc.):
American Conservative magazine
OnlineJournal
BBC News
AlterNet
This issue was also covered extensively in other legitimate media outlets like the Atlantic Monthly, the Los Angeles Times, and many others.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
In all honasty, and WMD/oil-for-food issues asside, I think Iraq makes an interesting case for invasion. Unpopular middleast leader, known invader history, known mass murderer and saddist, humanitarian reasons, people starved by yet Saddam refractory to sanctions and UN resolutions, strategic location in heart of fundamentalist Islam yet less fundamentalist people, oil rich for self sufficiency, not TOO strong militarily (c/w say Iran) and someone who had generated his credibility in the US by defying the U.S...IF one believed that democracy is the antithesis of fundamentalist Islam, that the 2 cannot co-exist side by side, and IF one was interested in attempting to implant a muslim democracy in the "belly of the beast" I think Iraq probably makes an optimal candidate. Is THIS where the "neocons" were comming from?
Yes, that seems to be the gist of the neo-con's argument for war against Iraq. They believe that we ought to try to remake the middle east (starting with Iraq) and they strongly advocate for the use of military force to achieve that goal. It is a policy that may make a lot of corporate interests and government contractors very rich in the short run, so it is warmly embraced by the Republican power structure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
The introduction of references to France and Russia is a red herring
To be honest, Iâ??m not sure I understand these references here â?¦
Although I believe this to be irrelevant to my analysis
Everything I've read about military strategy suggests that planning for specific military actions leaves virtually nothing to chance, nothing unaccounted for including clearly defined objective(s), contingencies for all possible complications; everything from â??getting inâ? to â??getting outâ? including time frame, resource required and a clear set of success metrics to know when the job was done.
Sorry - but no where near convinced my analysis is flawed.
What you have determined to be "red herrings" not understood and "irrelevant" IMO are relevent...I guess we will just have to disagree.
With all due respect to your military reading you list a number of absolutes. Beyond death, destruction, winning and losing their are few absolutes. And you left something out..war is won by the side with the greater WILL to win, which is more important in many cases than planning, resources, training, etc. The ability to gut it out. HOW MANY time to we have to relearn this.
On Iraq, one candidate clearly stands firm.
The other "wrong war, wrong time".."depends on how it turns out", "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". Reliance on the (corrupt) UN's "global test", voted against FIRST Gulf waw, etc, etc..
Folks..if you believe war is won by the side with a greater will, if you think we must win in Iraq or suffer a loss to the jihaddists who fight us there and loss of face in a region of the worldwhere actions not words mean strength, can you HONASTLY argure that Kerry possesses that will to a greater degree. If you can..vote for him.
But I digress, Sorry - but no where near convinced MY analysis is flawed.
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: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Yes, that seems to be the gist of the neo-con's argument for war against Iraq. They believe that we ought to try to remake the middle east (starting with Iraq) and they strongly advocate for the use of military force to achieve that goal. It is a policy that may make a lot of corporate interests and government contractors very rich in the short run, so it is warmly embraced by the Republican power structure.
Thanks for the links. I might question the Israeli-centric nature of the rational. Have they proof this group as a whole values Israel more than the U.S? I certainly question any buisiness motive. Deep loathing is evident, that is for sure..
Beyond that, the plan is similar to the conclusions I drew myself post 9/11. They seem convinced as do I (though I personnaly lack any "Israeliophillic" tendencies) that fundementalist Islam is a threat BECAUSE they see worldwide freedom and democracy as a THREAT to themselves. That islamic fundamentalism is not as attractive to young muslims before they are indoctrinated in the oppressive, strict, primative culture and the lure of our culture will unravel their rigid doctrine over decades. That we increasingly infuse it into their culture daily with TV, sattellite, internet, movies, electonic books and magazines. We are seen by them as a metastising cancer, we MUST be destroyed. Now in his recent tape, Bin Laden reaches back 2 decades to Isreali attacks on Lebanon as his motive for attaking the U.S. OBL grasping at STRAWS here....or is this a "red herring"..his real reason as I described above?? You be the judge.
The implications are clear...In ONE senerio, jihaddists stop comming after us if we do what they want. Essentially,appeasement should work..As in Spain for example. Well WAIT Spain complied but jihaddists STILL plotted to bomb them just weeks ago. In the OTHER senerio, they hate us for who we our and what our freedom can do to them. Here appeasement is NOT possible. We either change who they are or who WE are. I like who we are. Concider that maybe, just maybe those dread "neocons" were foreward thinking about this issue (as we took hit after terrorist hit last decade)...
You know, we are now hearing more of the Bin Laden tape that everyone is trying to supress. Apparently, OBL is now focusing his threat on ANY STATE that votes BUSH. Looks like I am in trouble here in Virginia...
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: 198
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 198 |
Thanks Dan - just to clarify.
Is your position that, in terms of the military objective of removing the threat of Iraqi WMD, invading without knowing where they were was the right military decision?
Or are you in fact suggesting that removing the threat of Iraqi WMD wasn't the real objective of the invasion, in which case not knowing their whereabouts would in fact be irrelevant?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,115 |
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:
Yes, that seems to be the gist of the neo-con's argument for war against Iraq.
GOD!! Haven't you found a new word to play with yet!? 
"Eagles may soar high, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by PDXSVT:
This is going back a bit on this thread, but has anyone seen the case that Greg Thielmann (30 year veteran of the US State Dept) makes on how the US' Energy Dept. AND State Dept. analysts knew (and reported) -- before we invaded -- that Saddam's aluminum tubes were not for use in centrifuges to enrich radioisotopes... yet those tubes were regularly cited in Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice comments before the war, to justify going in soon after the remarks were made. And yes, even by Colin Powell, disregarding his department's analysts.
WTF kind of consensus throughout the international intelligence community is that?
This is the only important point in the whole WMD argument.
The Bush admin chose to ignore input from the Dept of Energy that the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for use in uranium enrichment.
Without evidence of a nuclear program they knew that support for an invasion was not nearly as strong.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Of couse! Why am I so blind? The disproval of aluminum tube usage for Saddam's nuclear program TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY destroys our concern about TONS of missing VX and biotoxins, in addition to concerns that David Kay, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter (all UN Weapon inspector leads) brought up in their reports to the UN of rampant concerns over dual-use equipment, missing material and still unaccounted-for toxins! 
Here's some other "important" points that were mentioned on the WMD argument over Iraq, and from many that felt that when ALL of the known evidence was weighed, invasion was THE choice:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
My point was that the Bush administration knew there was a dissenting opinion from the energy dept concerning those aluminum tubes and chose to not tell the public. They liked the opinion of the CIA better.
Quote all the people you like, the facts don't change.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
