http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061221-122441-5208r.htm [rquoter] CIA exercise reveals consequences of defeat By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published December 21, 2006 The CIA this month conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets, according to sources familiar with the two-day exercise. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield confirmed to The Washington Times yesterday that the simulation took place in Northern Virginia. He declined to discuss its findings, saying that a final report is not finished and that the report will not be the intelligence community's official view. It will, however, be circulated within the community and possibly to U.S. policy-makers. The exercise involved 75 CIA analysts and outside specialists. It was conducted by the CIA's Office of Terrorism Analysis, within the agency's Counterterrorism Center. A source familiar with the simulation said it was a "red team" exercise in which participants played the role of global jihadists and war-gamed how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will influence their terror movement. Although it takes no policy positions, the simulation's key finding appears to bolster Mr. Bush's contention that a U.S. loss in Iraq will have far-reaching ramifications. At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Bush said, "A lot of Americans understand the consequences of retreat. Retreat would embolden radicals. It would hurt the credibility of the United States. Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks." Al Qaeda has made stopping democracy in Iraq a top priority, according to U.S. military officials. It has recruited hundreds of suicide bombers to come to Iraq and inflict mass casualties to spur a Sunni-Shi'ite Muslim civil war. The group wants to wear down U.S. troops to the point where they will retreat. Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to turn Iraq and other Middle East countries into hard-line Islamic states, U.S. military officials say. One key finding from the "red team" exercise is that al Qaeda will follow past practices. Jihadists perceived the victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1988 as a seminal event that spawned the creation of al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda leaders thought that if jihadists could defeat a global power in one theater, it could bring down governments in other nations. Six years later, when U.S. troops left Somalia after taking casualties at the hands of al Qaeda-trained Muslim fighters, it reaffirmed its feeling of invincibility and its belief that Western powers have a low threshold for casualties. After Somalia, al Qaeda -- and like-minded jihadists -- began attacking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf region and ultimately struck America on September 11, 2001. The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits. "When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower. "Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do," said the source. "Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it's won." This person expressed unhappiness that the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, devoted less than a page to what a loss in Iraq would mean for global terrorism. The source said he hopes the CIA report is circulated within the administration to drive home the point that the stakes are high in Iraq. Mr. Bush is set to announce early next year new strategies and tactics for winning in Iraq. He previously has dismissed proposals from Democrats to pull out all 135,000 U.S. troops now or withdraw them on a set timetable regardless of events on the ground. Mr. Mansfield said the Counterterrorism Center this year has sponsored 20 internal simulations, seminars and conferences using outside experts to examine issues related to the war on terror. He added, "We frequently reach out to experts outside of government and solicit their views on a range of matters. It is done routinely, and it is a very important aspect of our work. The simulation consisted of officers from around the intelligence community as well as outside experts." Such events are held, he said, "to better understand emerging threats to the United States." [/rquoter]
That's funny, I could have sworn that creation of more terrorists (the predictable result of invading Iraq) wasn't cause for concern when we started this whole mess. Anyway - what is victory? basso tell me what victory is - exactly- and where the dividing line lies between victory and defeat. Thus far you define "victory" as "not defeat" and you define "defeat" as "not occupying Iraq indefinitely" - you're going to have to do better than that son. I know all aobut your old victory conditions - pro-american and pro-israel peace and democracy which sweep the mideast. Since we've abandoned that - does that mean we've conceded defeat?
Perhaps they should have considered running this analysis and publicizing it before committing the country to the war? From my perspective this just reinforces the view that Iraq is the most damaging military adventure in the history of the United States. Since you love the WWII references where you compare Democrats to Chamberlain, I would say that to start this war was about as wise an idea as Hitler invading Poland. The choice creates insanely large tactical problems. Hitler 'won' Poland but created a war against France, the UK, and ultimately the United States for his 'victory'.
Liberals, The decision to go to war is OVER. It's over. Quit rehashing it. The reality is that we are IN A WAR in which the consequences of losing are IMMENSE. You can belly-ache all you want about the decision to go to war, but what matters now is figuring out HOW TO WIN. Running away is not winning. Soldiers will die, there is no doubt about it, however that is no way to measure whether a war is justified or not. The cause is how you measure it. Defeating radical Islam is a cause worth fighting for. In case you forgot, they attacked us. Allowing them to not only attack us, but to cut short their extermination, is the worst signal that can be sent.
Wait - is there any question that there are consequences to defeat? If there weren't, there wouldn't be any debate over what to do. This seems like moving the target again to the lowest possible bar to justify a position. The question should be: Is it possible to win? If so, do we have any clue how? If not, is continuing to try WORSE than losing? If you're looking at it from any other angle, or trying to play the 'we can't lose!' argument without any clue how to achieve anything other than losing, you've completely missed the point.
In an effort to have some interesting discussion prior to deraliment, here's what the white house defined in its "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" in Nov. 2005: Short-term, looks to me like we've failed miserably on almost all accounts.
you forgot the soviet union. and your analogy sucks. the fascists attached us on 9/11, not the other way around.
I'm sorry, when did Iraq attack the United States again? BTW your frequent Nevil Chamberlain analogies suck as well. Furthermore, the Soviet Union did not in any way attack Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland. I assume you know better and were just not thinking.
yes i did know that- but germany did not lose the war as a result of the invasion of Poland, and war w/ the US did not come for 2.5 years. in between was a little thing called Operation Barbarossa, when Hitler invoked the Powell Doctrine and sent 3M men and 3300 tanks across the border. absent that strategic error, one might argue, Hitler would've won.
So what you're saying is - on a strategic level, had we merely been satisfied with Afghanistan (which actually did attack us, or at least people there helped) and solidified things there and not tried to overreach with Iraq - things would have turned out better in the same way that Hitler could have won had he not overreached into the USSR? I agree.
"Don't touch that stove. It's hot." "I said don't touch that stove it's hot. You'll burn your hand." T_J touches stove. T_J: "Damn! Stupid liberals. Why didn't you tell me it was hot?"
Seriously, this was a weak attempt to throw out a red herring and bail on the direction of the discussion. I actually laughed out loud when I read it (really it was more of a chortle or guffaw, but you get the idea). Honestly I expect better from you, though I guess we all have our off days. I know that I have my share.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
