Are the architects of the War on Terror in trouble

[sexual_chocolate]

Is that counter punch going to come from domestic cell or from a nation-state?

 

I know that you've thought about this. What exactly do you think that Iran is queing up for?

 

 

I'd like to take this on tomorrow. But the short answer is I personally think it will be from a cell, and the infil routes for whatever they bring in will match drug trade doctrine. The southwest is a gaping hole right now. They have tried Canada and got caught, they read our papers and they see how the Mexican military, and drug cartels are easily coming in and engaging US military observers with small arms with zero response from our side. If a unit is able to cross the border, specifically engage a US MILITARY outfit on an X, with no repurcussion, then how hard is it going to be to get across the border in force with zero issue. They're probably already there and in place. Waiting.

 

ummm sounds like a justification for spending billions on a friggin' fence.

 

we got like a brazillion miles of coastline, and another brazillion miles of mountainous terrain between us and canada. frick, look at israel: a couple hundred miles of border, and they can't stop suicide bombers, even with a fence.

it doesn't mean we don't try, but if we don't address the sources of the problem, it's gonna happen no matter what we do (at this point, it's gonna happen no matter what).

[StevenSeagal]

 

Oh, and was that the boat I have been sitting in for 4 years on the other side of the world? The one where it is now 0047 in the morning, and my suit and tie is a suit of plate armor?

 

You are not the RedNose? What have you done with RedNose? Did he fall overboard in the Bering Sea?

 

 

Sorry for my tone earlier Segal man. It's 1am, I have been here on this tour since last June, and I am tired. No excuse for being a dick I know.

 

Well, it's a hard job being Out for Justice. I'm glad you're on the right team. Al qaida thinks they are Above the Law. They're Marked for Death.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The divorce analogy is a good one. I'll accept that prima facia.

 

The US does maintain a presence in Africa. The Ethopians were trained by US advisors, and they just sent some bad people running for the fences in Somalia. THIS is the real strength of SpecOps, Law Enforcement, and aid programs to developing countries. Enemy defeated via proxy. Proxy gains favor, more aid, more money, footprint.

 

This is a good strategy, proxy cooperation. As long as we don't go it alone without the host countries cooperation (unrealistic). These nations have as great an interest in ridding themselves of assholes as we do. But bombing Mecca won't help it much. Plus, the threat of death doesn't deter a suicide bomber for obvious reasons.

So you advocate the selling of America? I disagree on two points. One is that most countries and the people in them no longer think American culture is all that attractive. in some ways, it is an ugly self absorbed society that thrives in the moment. No real culture exists outside of the product or trend of the month.

Agreed...now. I advocate a shift in American policies to a more responsible showcase of the American ideal of liberty, which doesn't equate to gluttony, as so many of us seem to believe now. America at it's best is damn near irresistable for most people I've met around the world.

The other point leads me to the topic of the dissolution of more traditional American ways of life through the selling out of our own country. The southwest is being overrun by immigration, and has been for a long time. Is this how we keep people from hating us? We sell out our future?

The 'traditional' way of life is the melting pot. The mom and pop soda fountain, christian family values, et al are just marketing buzz words.

 

I would say our traditional strength can be found in the bill of rights, and in the future, hopefully, in a sustainable, responsible respect for the planet. That will do more to

bring people back over to our side than all the unilateral actions we can think of.

 

As for immigration, well, we need the labor. I wouldn't describe it as being overrun, although some population control, and thus control of immigration, is a good thing environmentally.

 

No one wants to monitor the world, especially me, but I am somehow bound to it. Maybe it was my calling. I would prefer isolationism. American principals? Are these the same prinicipals that gave us manifest destiny, and the extinction of major tribes from the Appalachians to the coast? You see where I am going I am sure.

See my previous comment about proxy. I guess I was referring to unilaterally policing the world. I do agree that with good diplomatic relations we can get host countries with our help to do much of the police work for us (and them).

 

The insurgents have secured no valuable strategy in their fight in Iraq. The truth be told they are terrible fighters, and I would rather run the gauntlet of a thousand IED laden roads than sit under a Soviet style artillery barrage. We have tied the hands of our troops behind their balls, because we "feel bad that we went to war". We think it's "really sucky that some untrained National Guardsmen took some naked photographs, so maybe Nick Berg deserved what he got". C'mon man, grab your testicles and let's whip these little bitches who think they have a chance.

I'm typing this with one hand right now...

 

Americans know the insurgents can't fight worth crap. But they seem to be able to assasinate, sabotage, bring economies down, and stay on the scene pretty well. The problem with most of us over here now is that half of us never believed Iraq's problems were our own to begin with, and the other half now believe the same thing. Why is this civil war our problem? These are not 'terrorists' so much as tribes shoving their way in line for that oil. We've seen over here a trend upward in violence and a hault in nation building. What other conclusion should we come to. Plus, there's the $7 billion a month....

You underestimate the power of strength. In some ways you sound a lot like Chamberlin. Your theories are sound, but they fail to acknowledge the examples where strong iron fisted rule prevailed when used effectively. The Phillipines a case in point, American Indian wars, WW2, ancient times. No war is popular in many ways, but if the means justify the ends. Like I said before sometimes it is trial of the will. But the will of the people is not there, then it's just not there. I'll retire the country, and live in peace. Just don't call on me or my son to come when the next fire starts.

 

I'm an avid student of WWII and the Vietnam War. I do realize the importance of strength, or at times perceived strength, in fighting conventional wars. But in the age of instant, global information, or misinformation, the information war is just as important as the military one in fighting a movement which can jump like a wildfire to another region in a matter of days and which is being prosecuted by disjoint groups without clear central leadership.

 

My ideas follow Churchill's more than Chamberlain's. Pick you battles carefully and fight them until the end. Churchill presided in a time when England was doing precisely that; backing away from wars of independence it could not win on the political front while focusing on a conventional, tyranical threat which it could. None of us hold a candle to that great man, but at least I drink the same martini.

 

 

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

 

Sorry for my tone earlier Segal man. It's 1am, I have been here on this tour since last June, and I am tired. No excuse for being a dick I know.

 

Word Tman. I'll fire this up again tomorrow if you want. I gotta rack out.

 

We're all dicks here now and then, myself being a poster child at times. It's the nature of the forum. As you've already surmised, none of us take that part seriously.

 

Manana.

 

 

[mattp]

This has been an interesting discussion. One small point I agree with is that much of this seems to have a lot to do with our unstated or perhaps more accurately rarely stated and generally downplayed alliance with Saudi Arabia. What is up with that?

 

Yes, everybody knows that the Bush family and the Saudi’s are best buddies, and we’ve all read about how their family members had special flying privileges after 911, or how almost all of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia or how Saudi money is funding much of the Sunni side in current Iraq battles, but rarely is any of this highlighted in any fashion where we would be expected to really think about it. Saudi Arabia is a big player in all of this but I wonder if anybody outside of a very small circle of advisors who are discussing these matters in secret is really much aware of or concerned with their role in any of this.

 

Obviously, the ongoing conflict in Iraq cannot be boiled down to any one simple idea except perhaps “who is going to maintain a military base right next to the most productive oil fields,” but isn’t there an element of a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia at play here? Are we, in some respects, a pawn in THEIR game? Do the Saudi's promote terrorism and instability as much or more than Iran?

 

[archenemy]

Are we, in some respects, a pawn in THEIR game? Do the Saudi's promote terrorism and instability as much or more than Iran?

Good question.

 

[Crux]

...Today’s [27 January 2007] newspaper headlines include the apology from the Prime Minister of Canada, offered to the man seized at a N.Y. airport and sent to Syria to be tortured based on his being falsely named as a terrorism suspect (Maher Arar). The U.S. has never acknowledged it made a mistake in the case, but this certainly comes as an embarrassment.

 

Today’s paper also reports that Italy has seized a CIA agent’s villa and may indict 26 Americans and five Italian intelligence officials on criminal charges in connection with illegal renditions of terrorist suspects. The paper says former CIA station chiefs in Rome and Milan are included in the list...

And now, 31 January 2007, Germany has ordered the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents over the alleged kidnapping of one of its citizens: BBC News

 

The question still remains: As outrage overseas continues to mount, will the German Federal Prosecutor go forward with the war crimes charges that have been filed there against Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al? And if this capital prosecution is pressed against the Bush administration in Germany, will the exposure it brings to the United States Congress compel it to launch impeachment proceedings here at home? And will that, in turn, lead to the first domestic criminal prosecution of an American President?

 

One can always hope for the best.

[pink]

Are we, in some respects, a pawn in THEIR game? Do the Saudi's promote terrorism and instability as much or more than Iran?

Good question.

 

 

we all promote stability..... human nature. sit on the world's oil supply and control that. i heard that there is oil in alaska, just a rumor and don't quote me on that.

[Skeezix]

Gotterdamerung?

[ClimbingPanther]

And will that, in turn, lead to the first domestic criminal prosecution of an American President?

 

One can always hope for the best.

 

Heil Cheney!

[Crux]

 

In the event of impeachment or criminal prosecution, where Bush goes Cheney is sure to follow. Thus, the next in the line of succession is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

[mattp]

The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General produced the report which indicates that former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, and his Office of Special Plans, sent the Bush administration bogus intelligence on Iraq's weapons program and ties to terrorist organizations and basically supports the message in the Downing Street Memo: the fact were being twisted around the policy of invading Iraq.

 

Michigan’s Senator Levin says this is a “damning” revelation (as if it is anything new at all - ( 2004 Levin report ), and a White House spokesman says that Bush has taken responsibility for this and made appropriate corrections in intelligence procedures. On the radio this morning, it was reported that Feith has been cleared of any criminal conduct connected with any of this.

 

Should it be a crime to twist the intelligence to support a public campaign to launch a war?

 

Bush committed a felony when he lied in his state of the union address, and Cheney probably did too at some point, but what about this?

[tvashtarkatena]

Should it be a crime to twist the intelligence to support a public campaign to launch a war?

 

 

I believe it's called treason.

[chucK]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves (or the country anyway).

 

Last polls in mid-January had from 34 to 41 percent of the people saying that they still considered that going into Iraq was the right thing to do!

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

To spice things up a bit: a NYT article today covers how the Mahdi Army is the only entity that has rebuilt Sadr City (a neglected shiite slum during Saddam's reign). It's going to get politically very interesting if we go toe to toe with them.

 

At last count we're fighting four different wars in Iraq. That's got to be confusing, even for a crack soldier like Patreus.

[mattp]

You guys are getting ahead of yourselves (or the country anyway).

 

Last polls in mid-January had from 34 to 41 percent of the people saying that they still considered that going into Iraq was the right thing to do!

 

A not insignificant percentage still believes Iraq attacked us on 911, too, but as recently as a year ago that percentage was much larger. And plenty believe Clinton was ignoring the terrorist threat while Bush was all on top of things before 911. A bit of Congressional inquiry may help clarify the reality there (though of course it may not).

 

American public ignorance aside, it is clear that this administration has lied at virtually every step of the way with regard to Iraq, and they've been pursuing goals that have had very little to do with fighting terrorism, is it not?

[JosephH]

Rumsfeld set Feith and Co. up and created the "Office of Special Plans" specifically to 'wash' and manufacture intelligence after career DIA and CIA officers refused to do it for him...

[chucK]

American public ignorance aside, it is clear that this administration has lied at virtually every step of the way with regard to Iraq, and they've been pursuing goals that have had very little to do with fighting terrorism, is it not?

 

Yep. I'd agree and add that it seems that whatever goals they have been pursuing in Iraq and the middle east they have totally screwed them up (unless anarchy, chaos, lots of death was their goal all along).

[tvashtarkatena]

"Office of Special Plans". Ya gotta love the NewSpeak.

 

What they were doing with this office (shooting unvetted intelligence straight to the top) is called 'stovepiping' in government circles. Homey.

[RedNose]

The "BrainTrust" hard at work again I see. What latest and greatest government hating conspiracy are you all festering about now?

 

I always thought Stovepiping was when you had a round fail to clear the ejection port and block your next round from chambering. That's really bad when you want to put one right into Al Sadr's brain cavity.

 

Wow, Tman-you're really on a roll today. Keep up the good work everyone, it's really entertaining, sort of like an episode of Lost.

 

[Crux]

Is this PTSD, the countenance a noobie fascist, or both? Either way, it's surely a morbid sight to watch from afar the spiral nosedive of a man going down in flames.

[mattp]

Yep. I'd agree and add that it seems that whatever goals they have been pursuing in Iraq and the middle east they have totally screwed them up (unless anarchy, chaos, lots of death was their goal all along).

 

There are some who argue that WAS their goal. Instability would justify long term military presence and the really wanted that new fort right in the southern Iraq oil fields that nobody is talking much about, and taking the Iraqi oil off the market be contributing to record high oil profits, while they are saving the Iraqi oil for a rainy day. Meanwhile, Congress and the American public are so preoccupied with the mess in Iraq that they've managed to build popular support for all kinds of consolidated power in the President's lap, they've gutted all kinds of environmental laws, and they continue to pursue tax reform for the wealthy -- all the kinds of things that help fill the bank accounts of their main supporters.

 

I am generally suspicious of conspiracy theories, but it is undeniable that a lot of money is being made by Halliburton and the oil companies and Bush is not really getting much criticism for acting like king.

[JosephH]

The "BrainTrust" hard at work again I see. What latest and greatest government hating conspiracy are you all festering about now?

 

So, are you actually attempting to claim there was a shred of legitimacy around Fieth's or the OoSP's activities? Because if that's the case, Dorothy, you really need to click those red heels three times. It's exactly the sort of activities the right used to warn about before they all rolled over into government stooges...

[mattp]

I'd like to hear what rednose thinks about who has made money from all of this and whether that may have influenced policy decisions. It'd be cool if Fairweather hadn't quit the discussion too. I'm serious: do you guys think those who pull the strings are not in it for the money?

[Crux]

Excerpt from a story on the Office of Special Plans, and other things, published over one year ago:

 

On the very afternoon of September 11, 2001, the day al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told an aide that he wanted the "best info fast; judge whether good enough [to] hit S. H." Then he added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related, and not." Thus commenced the dishonest campaign by high level officials in the administration of George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq - and, thus, the exertion of pressure on agents in America's duly established intelligence agencies to embrace fabrications provided by anti-Saddamist Iraqi emigres about Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda.

 

On the evening of September 12th, President Bush told counterterrorism expert, Richard Clarke: "I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way..." When Clarke responded: "but Mr. President, al Qaeda did this," President Bush replied: "I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred..."

 

When Clarke replied, "We have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and have not found any real linkages," Bush testily retorted, "Look into Iraq, Saddam."27 According to Clarke, Bush never said, "'Make it up,' but the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said, 'Iraq did this.'"

 

In fact, Clarke's office quickly issued a memo to National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, which concluded "the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak... bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. "But, according to Clarke, "it got bounced by the national-security advisor, or deputy. It got bounced and sent back, saying, 'Wrong answer... Do it again.'" --Walter C. Uhler (January 20, 2006)