Blackwater Question

tvashtarkatena · November 13, 2008

You're making the ridiculous implication the Medvedev's speech would have been somehow different had McCain been elected; conveniently projecting your own political bias into the Russian's actions. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. I believe it's called blowing smoke up your own ass.

I reality, of course, an increasingly belligerent Russia would have greatly preferred a McCain victory, so that the bulk of our forces would continued to be tied up in our Iraqi money pit. Under Obama, many of those forces will either be freed up or redeployed closer to the Russian border. This fairly obvious conclusion would have required you to go a few steps beyond the "liberals are pussies" ceiling of your analytical capability, so I'm not too surprised at your assertions.

Like I said previously, I hope President Elect Obama makes the right choices. I don't have any real issues with the party right now. I am keeping an open mind and hoping that things get worked out in our favor. I'm a pragmatist, but I think it's important to see the bigger picture and take it all in, not just the narrow field of view that is partisan politics.

Somehow I don't see President Elect Obama forward deploying returning troops to Poland or the Fulda Gap. I think he's already indicated little willingness to stand by the countries that put their necks on the line and courted a ballistic missile shield to begin with.

Only time will tell, after all this is all just speculation.

I was referring to Obama's stated goal of increasing deployment in Afghanistan. In addition, actually having some troops in reserve, should a conflict arise, might increase American negotiating leverage a bit. Sheeit, we've overblown our wad so much that even the Iranians don't take us seriously anymore.

Obama's shown character and backbone his whole life. He just handed one of Washington's most notorious street brawlers his ass in an American presidential election; one of the toughest political battles anyone can take on. This is in addition to his proven intellect and analytical capability. I'd say he has the raw materials to enact a successful foreign policy agenda, even in this current world of tough customers.

In contrast, McCain would have been a predictable, repetitious, and increasingly confused and tired adversary for a rising star like Medvedev, if his unimpressive behavior during this election is any indication.

Just speculating, of course.

Edited November 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

JosephH · November 14, 2008

Could it also be that Iraq and Afganistan actually works to OBL's advantage in almost every way. His existing close cadre of lieutenants were all winnowed and sifted out of the ranks of folks who proved themselves fighting a superpower (the Russians) in Afganistan. What makes you think he cares about the outcomes in Iraq or Afganistan now beyond their potential for replenishing his ranks? It could just as easily be that he realizes he's fighting a new and broader asymmetric 'war' and at this point doesn't really give a rat's ass about either beyond their role as the perfect training and proving ground for a new generation of jihad fighters loyal to his broader cause. With the neocon's help he gets two different breeding grounds he can rotate his most promising recruits through giving them exposure to very different operating environments and alliances. I would suspect he runs them through the mill there and then moves them to Syria and on to the EU and Indonesia for 'cultural' training and integration testing.

billcoe · November 14, 2008

Could it also be that Iraq and Afganistan actually works to OBL's advantage in almost every way. His existing close cadre of lieutenants were all winnowed and sifted out of the ranks of folks who proved themselves fighting a superpower (the Russians) in Afganistan. What makes you think he cares about the outcomes in Iraq or Afganistan now beyond their potential for replenishing his ranks? It could just as easily be that he realizes he's fighting a new and broader asymmetric 'war' and at this point doesn't really give a rat's ass about either beyond their role as the perfect training and proving ground for a new generation of jihad fighters loyal to his broader cause. With the neocon's help he gets two different breeding grounds he can rotate his most promising recruits through giving them exposure to very different operating environments and alliances. I would suspect he runs them through the mill there and then moves them to Syria and on to the EU and Indonesia for 'cultural' training and integration testing.

Interesting: CIA report post minutes before on the NY Times.

Link

JosephH · November 14, 2008

Hmmm, believe it or not I missed that one as I've been coding. But it's not an altogether surprising pronouncement as it seems to me about the only explanation for the way OBL's engagements have played in the region since 9/11 and the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq. I have yet to see a sustained pattern of operations by Qaeda in Iraq that amounted to anything other than giving a pipeline of recruits experience in [temporarily] controlling local populations (a Taliban specialty) and engaging US and Iraqi troops. I suspect the focus was on Iraq only due the fact that a high-volume recruiting pipeline was far easier to pump through Syria than Pakistan. Now that he likely has a good established base groomed he's probably moving on to bigger things.

If that is how it's playing out then the likely net result of the administration's wars in Iraq and Afganistan is that we just invested a trillion dollars in OBL Enterprises, Inc., Pashtun tribes, Iraqi Shiites, Taliban, and Iran. No matter how you slice or dice it - we've generated far more hardened 'terrorists' then we started with.

--------------

Now that I do take a few minutes and look, here's another:

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - U.S. pressure on al Qaeda near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan has put the group "off balance," but the region remains the biggest terrorism threat to the United States, the CIA's chief said on Thursday...

Now there's some serious wishful thinking and grasping for some sort of accomplishments for an adminstration 'progress' report they've had to make public now that they've briefed Obama.

Edited November 14, 2008 by JosephH

Serenity · November 15, 2008

Oh c'mon. Patience, persistence has an effect. The operation tempo is increasing.

OBL is not a significant factor. He was just a catalyst, and now he is an iconic figure.

You have to understand that Pakistan has always been the real problem.

Crux · November 15, 2008

As long as the enemy within our own borders is in power, I think we can be sure our problems will continue to mount, on all fronts, including here: Paksitan.

tvashtarkatena · November 15, 2008

I think the bulk of extremist ideas flowed out of Saudi Arabia, but found a fertile home in Pakistan. Pakistan was forged in bloody extremism. It's so politically and religiously volatile that anything could ignite it. That makes it basically off limits for U.S. incursions or even joint operations of any scale, yet that's where the bad guys operate, right out in the open. Even if large scale joint operations were planned in Pakistan, their army and intellitgence services, with their fractured loyalties and unusual autonomy, would add a couple of wild cards to an already risky hand. Now that the country has nuclear weapons, the technology for which they have shared with unsavory nations for the past two decades, they are, by far, the number one world threat right now.

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

Edited November 15, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

pc313 · November 15, 2008

I'm thinkin Daisy Cutters?

tvashtarkatena · November 15, 2008

We could scrawl "Hi there!" on them before kicking them down the rail.

pc313 · November 15, 2008

Maybe get Russia to let us try their new one,it's twice as big!

Serenity · November 16, 2008

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

PT1

PT2

billcoe · November 16, 2008

Thanks for the links!

Intense

tvashtarkatena · November 16, 2008

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

PT1

PT2

Hints of Vietnam here. Sounds like groups such as this are fighting to repel foriegners and maintain independence, not plotting against the United States, and therefore not a threat. Is this similar to branding Ho Chi Minh's movement as communist in the 50's, when it was an independence movement with a minority communist faction at the time, because that re-definition served American political interests better.

The question is; how do we go after groups like Al Qaeda while avoiding conflict with local tribes that care only about being left alone? Or would our domestic security actually improve if we just packed up and left the tribes to establish their own territorial dominance?

pc313 · November 16, 2008

I say pull the troops out of the hills,and have the C.I.A. start breeding genetically re-engineened mutant heards of Ibex that are raised on high protein,steroid loaded feed, and trained like drug dogs to seek out goatcheese eating,C4 packing Al QAEDA fighters and rewarded with drugs like METH or ICE. They could pay a turned Taliban hardcore hillbilly to have forced sex with them while firing his AK47 and yelling GOD IS GREAT in his native Pashtuns to install a agressive hate for ragheads. Before being deployed they would surgically implanted Satellite controled G.P.S.,cameras with night vision and range finders,remote drug injecters for Steroids and meth,and 40LB.of high explosive for suicide missions, maybe a freakin starwars lasser all controled from the same remote bases that control the Predator Drones. Who knows it could already be in the works?

Doug · November 16, 2008

Nah, with the Democrats in power the budget for cool shit like that is gone. Probably go to feed the homeless or something.

Braydon · November 17, 2008

This is a much belabored point, but had we not gone into Iraq, we might have destroyed the Taliban more completely and helped to prevent their resurgence, while putting into effect a much more widespread and deeper aid package for Afghanistan and Pakistan to build some friendship.

Pakistan has little interest in seeing the current regime stay in place. They are a Pashtun dominated country, and as such they believe in their inherent supremacy.

Anonymous, a retired CIA intelligence operative and analyst, says this about the Pashtun's.

"The Pashtun's were not and are not going to abide a political relationship with minority groups they do not dominate."

-pg 38 Imperial Hubris

To better understand the Bush administrations approach to the initial invasion of Afghanistan reference "The Tenent Plan". A westernized view of the situation, which discarded the knowledge of years of research behind what is often referred to "As the most successful and long running clandestine program in US history". Also reference Charlie Wilson's war.

Most of the unrest and the real fighting in Afghanistan, particularly Wazaristan takes place along a narrow series of mountain corridors dominated by Pushtun tribes, supplied and mentored by agents of Al Qaeda, as well as independent groups who fight only because that is the life they know and understand.

The fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan is every bit as intense and bloody as anything in Iraq. Often very personal at close quarters. Seasoned Iraqi veterans are often caught off guard by the lonely and isolated conditions they are enduring. The firebases along the frontiers are subject to constant probing and assaults. The tactics the current enemy uses differs very little from what the British faced along the frontier during Kipling's days.

If you would like to study a microcosm of the current situation you can read this redacted report from the assault on the 173rd ABN in Wanat. The Waygal vignette is an example of just how distant victory is in Afghanistan. The Waigalis, at their heart, are isolationists. There are probably no Al-Qaeda members among the local insurgents and the actual Taliban influence, outside of the deobandist meta-narrative is negligible.

PT1

PT2

Hints of Vietnam here. Sounds like groups such as this are fighting to repel foriegners and maintain independence, not plotting against the United States, and therefore not a threat. Is this similar to branding Ho Chi Minh's movement as communist in the 50's, when it was an independence movement with a minority communist faction at the time, because that re-definition served American political interests better.

The question is; how do we go after groups like Al Qaeda while avoiding conflict with local tribes that care only about being left alone? Or would our domestic security actually improve if we just packed up and left the tribes to establish their own territorial dominance?

Geez guys...I need to get my English grade up. How much for writing an essay for me due on Friday. :grin:

Braydon · November 17, 2008

With Marc and I combined you guys could get a buisness going.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Braydon

pc313 · November 17, 2008

Nah, with the Democrats in power the budget for cool shit like that is gone. Probably go to feed the homeless or something.

ya,they need to stop some projects,but i'm talking of off the shelf technology,and besides we might not even have to pay to have them raped by ex-taliban for it could be a normal thing for them,hell they cover their women with a sheet??? WTF? How gay can you be,I mean the women cant all be that ugly? Of corse there was a joke going around after 911"How do you get a Taliban woman knocked up" ? come on her shoes and let the flies do the rest! I always that was a sick joke!!I thought it was more like the old Greek joke about not being able to separate the men form the boys!!!Could be the caves are their version of a S.F. bath house? But we do need to keep are troops out of snipper range until they can be replaced by robots !!

"heres one that we dont need"

olyclimber · August 5, 2009

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

billcoe · August 5, 2009

Interesting thread revival Porter.

Vis-a-vis this earlier salient point.

Credible strategic threats have to be dumbed down so the layman can understand them in a 60 seconds (or less) T.V. blurb. Whether you are a Christian right wing nutjob or a Jihadist car bomber, you're probably cut from the same mold.

prole · August 5, 2009

Interesting thread revival Porter.

Vis-a-vis this earlier salient point.

It's time for an intervention. Seriously. Bar soap and towels. Now.

billcoe · December 14, 2011

Gawker published the results of the Freedom on information act on Blackwater in Iraq which they had filed 4 years back. Copied and pasted most as well in case the link disappears. Short version: "GET OFF MY GRASS...."ERR SAND..." Interesting comments below the story if you click the link.

http://gawker.com/5866375/gentlemen-we-shot-a-judge-and-other-tales-of-blackwaters-rampage-through-iraq

"‘Gentlemen, We Shot a Judge’ and Other Tales of Blackwater, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy’s Rampage Through Iraq

Every time a Blackwater centurion discharged his weapon in Iraq, the company filed a written report with the U.S. State Department. Blackwater shot Iraq to shit. Here are the reports.

Blackwater, the private mercenary firm that became synonymous with Bush-era war profiteering and reckless combat-tourism, announced yesterday that it has changed its name to Academi (after a previous incarnation as Xe Services) in a bid to distance itself from its history of wanton lawlessness. We've obtained a 4,500-page record of that history in the form of State Department incident reports documenting every time a Blackwater guard shot at an Iraqi between 2005 and 2007.

We got them in response to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed four years ago. They come from the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which was charged with overseeing and monitoring the contractors hired by State to secure its diplomats and other VIPs in the war zone. While firms like DynCorp and Triple Canopy make frequent appearances, the reports are dominated by Blackwater, which was paid roughly $1 billion between 2004 and 2009 to provide "worldwide protective services" for State Department personnel. (It continues to surreptitiously weave its tentacles into various government contracts; hence the name changes.)

In Iraq, Blackwater's "protective services" consisted in large part of preemptively shooting any car that drove near its convoys. Page after page of the reports feature drivers (and occasionally boat pilots) who were fired upon simply because they drove "aggressively," attempted to pass, or didn't heed warnings to keep their distance. There was no routine mechanism for following up with the drivers to determine if they were injured or were actually hostile. Blackwater (and DynCorp and Triple Canopy) guards roamed Iraqi cities and highways, ignoring traffic rules and shooting at other drivers literally at will, and driving on. According to a 2007 investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [pdf], between 2005 and 2007 Blackwater operatives fired on Iraqis at least 195 times, or an average of 1.4 times per week. That included an infamous Baghdad firefight at Nisour Square that killed 17 civilians.

Much of what these files contain has already been reported—the authors of the Oversight Committee report appears to have had access to them, and various reporters have covered some of the incidents they record. But as far as we can tell, the documents themselves have never been published in their entirety. We have only been able to read a few random slivers of the 4,000 pages—we're posting them here for readers and researchers to pore over and help us find untold stories—but here's some of what we've been able to find.