Batman Jones: Macbeth and I have actually been over this a number of times, and I have been repeatedly accused of saying this... What I have in fact always said (and Macbeth will vouch for this if his memory and honesty serve) was that the threat was inevitable, not necesarily immediate. The difference here being that there is no real timetable here on when the threat would arise - maybe it was immediate, maybe it wouldn't arise for another 3 years. It still had to be dealt with. The question then is always asked: Why now? Answer: Why not now? Why not do it when he is weaker and easier to defeat? Why wait until the threat is immediate, or already happened? I like preemption. It keeps you from getting hit. I have always said that I personally believed it likely that there was an Iraq-9/11 connection, but that I wouldn't bet anything on that belief and would not claim it to be a fact until/unless more evidence was accumulated. Just a personal belief at this point. But documents have been found in Iraq (one in particular by a Brit journalist in the former Intelligence Ministry building's rubble) linking Iraqi Intelligence to Al Qaeda, as well as aqnother piece by a US judge from Tenessee listing names of Iraqi officials who have worked with Al Qaeda, actually a newspaper piece printed by Uday's authority in one of his papers. And then there is the Ansar group, outlined by Powell in his presentation to the UN. And there is the current link between former Baathists and Al Qaeda operatives working together now (4 men have been caught regarding yesterday's bombing, and they are claiming Al Qaeda did it with Saddam's help and weapons)... Some of it was shared in the Powell speech to the UN, particularly about the Ansar group and the Salman Pak facility (where it was claimed by numerous defectors that Al Qaeda trained with Iraqi Intelligence). That was part of the uncertainty of the situation. There was absolutely no way at all to know whether it was a valid threat at all, but every intelligence agency on the planet seemed to believe that it was a very real possibility at some point in the near future, and in the post-911 world it was not a possibility that we could let sit. Bush would not have been doing his job if he just ignored that potential, just as he will not be doing his job if he ignores the Iranian or North Korean potential for using the mushroom cloud defense. Not that they necessarily have to be invaded, but they must be dealt with... That came straight from British intelligence, not me... I actually had a thread on this very subject in which I explained why I didn't think that the Iraqis would use chemical weapons against us, so this clearly isn't my claim. Again, though, this is a result of the uncertainty experienced, and intelligence services trying to err on the side of caution. How responsible would it have been of them to say "We don't think Saddam wil use them, so just leave the MOPP at home", and then sarin starts raining down? All of the intel that everyone had said that it was likely that they would be used. Until the CIA says that they were wrong and someone actually presents a logical explanation of their purpose (mobile hydrogen production facility for artillery baloons that the Iraqis have not used in over a decade is still not a logical explanation - it is silly), the mobile labs have not been refuted. I'll take CIA's explanation over State's any day, as it is the CIA's job to explain these things, and not State's. The other cases (canisters, etc) are only partially negated, as they represent likely traces or echoes of the programs, just not the actual weapons themselves. I would also advise anyone to be very careful about claiming the nonexistence of these programs and the weapons. Kay and his team have found quite a bit of evidence and are in the process of compiling and sorting it right now for presentation later this year. Those who are claiming that there are/were no weapons are going to look quite silly when their report comes out. And for the most part we have been. This is one item that the media has been grossly misrepresenting... Everyone I have talked to has said that the vast majority of Iraqis want us there and are ecstatic that we toppled Saddam. Even some Sunnis are happy about it. But many Sunnis (and a small minority of Shiites) obviously do not want us there. There are a small few Shiites who are loyal to Tehran, and as a result are going to hate us no matter what we do, but this is a very small minority; most Shiites want nothing to do with Tehran. The Sunnis... Well of course they're not too happy to see us, we just ejected them from supreme power in their own country. Why would they be happy to see us? Most of them are not, and that is to be expected. But counting Kurds, Shiites, and the other minor minorities (Assyrians, Turkomens, etc), about 75% of the country was very happy to see us. That's not too bad for an invasion of another country. And if we can get services and a functioning economy running again (it will eventually happen, if slowly), then that will win over alot of the Sunnis, too. They are. You think that because a few one-liners are printed in the NYT about soldiers b****ing that the military isn't united? Guess what: Fact of Life, soldiers b****. They do more b****ing than anything else, and anyone who has ever served will vouch for that. Hell, I b**** constantly. That doesn't mean that when really pressed I don't think that all the crap I have to go through isn't worth it. I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't think that we are doing something worthwhile in Iraq, or that we did the wrong thing. I'm sure there are going to be a few who feel that way, but they are a tiny, tiny minority. Hardly enough to classify as disunity. Although of course if you read the NYT then you will get a different message, as intellectual honesty is not one of their strong points. I'm sure that they will say that such discord is rampant throughout the Army, but that is pure fiction. Ask anyone in the military. Soldiers get tired, and soldiers b****. Personally, I think 3 ID should have been relieved months ago, they are friggen heroes who have done and seen too much, and deserve to come home. They are understandably tired of Iraq. But how many have blabbed their gripes to reporters? Maybe twenty men out of a 15,000 man division. What does that tell you? If you understand the driving strategy behind the Iraq front, then this is not that difficult to understand. The idea is to inject market-oriented free democracy right into the middle of the ME, and hope that western-style changes will spread throughout the region. It will take decades to see it all come to fruition, but the eventual idea is to use such transformation to eliminate the sickness of radical Islamic fundamentalism that plagues Islam,. It is proof that this administration understands that this war cannot be won by force alone, that killing the terrorists is only a stopgap measure, and that the real deathblow against the terrorists will be struck via political and social reform in the Islamic world, and that it will take decades to accomplish. Iraq is the centerpiece of that transformation. It is our ground zero in the terrorists backyard. There was a plan, but plans change. They have to, because no plan is perfect, and this one was clearly nowhere near perfect. We all knew that we would be in Iraq for a while, though. No one should be surprised that we are going to be there for at least a decade. Personally, I have always maintained that we would be there for a while, regardless of what comes out of the administration. We are still in Japan and Germany. We do. I still fail to see what France and Germany could have brought to the table that would have made putting up with their demands worthwhile. If you are referring to more troops, more American (or even international) troops are not needed, although they wouldn't really hurt anything. More Iraqi troops are needed. This is about the only major problem I have with our effort so far: we are not training the Iraqi Army and police fast enough - only with their help can we secure Iraq, UN or no UN. We need Iraqis to work with our SF in hunter-killer teams with loose ROE (already doing some of this). We need to take all of those unemployed Iraqi soldiers and officers, give them uniforms, guns, paychecks, and a reason to fight Saddam and not us, and then turn them loose on the former Baathists and the Al Qaeda foreigners who are preventing their country from recovering quickly. And we need to do it pronto... If we did that quickly then this would be over in a month. Why are they not doing that? I think they fear having former Baathists in the new Army/police, but they are just going to have to learn to deal with the fact that there are going to be some former Baathists in those ranks. It's unavoidable, and pretty irrelevant as long as they're on our side. Hopefully they'll get that soon. But we can do it alone. The UN can help if they want to, but they will not significantly affect the course of the afterwar, they are only really useful in a nonmilitary, nonstrategic capacity. We can do that alone. Correct that: we alone can do it with the Iraqis. I don't remember ever commenting on this, but I'd tend to agree - some bean counter should have been able to get a rough estimate of the likely cost. No excuse for that. I wouldn't put too much stock into that. We haven't produced a weapon of that nature in about 30 years and ours are still viable and quite deadly. Assume what you may given that information. Other than stating from the outset that his primary goal was to avert a war, and not to conduct thorough inspections? I would say that tainted him a bit (he said that the first week UNMOVIC got its new mandate). Ah, that's about all I have time for right now. Hope that answered a few of the issues. At the least, it's refreshing to be able to discuss this with someone in a civil manner... So much more productive than hurling insults.
Macbeth: Your "qualifications" are grossly inadequate regarding this issue, or at least not nearly as strong as you appear to think and attempt to present. As I said previously, you appear to have little to no actual knowledge about military issues at the strategic, operational, or tactical levels, and appear to have no understanding of how these things actually work in real situations. Now, as I also said, you clearly are qualified in any discussion of military history. I think you probably are pretty good at the "who, what, when, and where" of things. You might even know some of the "why's", and you might even be able to apply a few of the past's lessons to other situations (although I have not seen you demonstrate this last one). I will bow to your superiority in that arena. But on current events your qualifications are for the most part lacking. Neither this war or our military have any really good historical comparisons - both are new, and an understanding of history will only offer limited utility in understanding them and the mechanics underlying their dynamic. And you do have an ego problem.
I made no assumption that their info was no better than gossip, only that 6th hand information from nameless, rankless, ghosts of soldiers are not what I consider to be more reliable than 1st hand accounts from people trained as journalists. In regard to the rest of your post I'm just going to cue Lee Greenwood for you and wish you a great holiday weekend.
Great choice!! I heard him do it live at a minor league hockey game here in 91 or 92... Did you think I'd be hurt?!
Just a rather quick point - not particularly taking a side as I tend to have faith in treeman, but: 1. The primary historical scar on the history of US Armed forces is Vietnam, where two lessons were burned into the mind of every junior officer who has gone on to become a General: a.)don't fight a war with artifically imposed political constraints on the use of force and (more germane to this arguement) b.)if you loose control of public perception and confidence, you will loose the war. 2. The US Army has an entire series of specialities devoted to making people think what they want to think, even if it is not the truth. (PsyOps) and 3. A major tenant of military training is one of tough love, where you breakdown a soldier in boot camp, so he will fight more effeciently in the long run. This being the case, what makes you sure the US Army wouldn't lie to it's soldiers if it thought it would help them fight better, when they're willing to exert enough psychological pressure to break them down? Surely the lie is the lesser of the two sins? I therefore to accept treeman's position without any critical evaluation would be unwise. After all, he's sitting on a canster of cyclon-b or gb or something somewhere in Kansas or the like and he is immersed in the military aparatus that could alter his beliefs if that were indeed their goal. From my point of view, while I view treeman's posts as containing a larger-than-normal helping of substance, I nevertheless think that to read what he posts uncritically would be a mistake for the above stated reasons, and since neither of us have been to Iraq lately.
I've listened quite a bit recently to Amy Goodman, well trained journalist and host of "Democracy Now" on Pacifica, and on several occasions when she's described what the role of a journalist is, she has stated that is is to dig up information make accusations (paraphrase). I state this because every time I've heard this, it becomes clear to me that everybody is human, and many journalists simply aren't concerned with absolute truth, much less are capable of giving it to you. In other words, I think you place too much faith in journalists.
Ottomaton: By all means, do not read my posts uncritically. To do so would indicate either an apathetic response or a lack of indipendent thinking on one's part... I don't encourage anyone to just take what I say as gospel, I just want them to think about it. That is all. Now, on your post: In general this is true. I would however say this: In Vietnam we could afford to pack it up and run home, while in Iraq that is not an option. It is unthinkable. I think the odds of us leaving - no matter how bad the public perception of events becomes (and I see the perceptions stabilizing at this point, roughly split half between favorable and unfavorable), we are stuck in this one until our victory is complete. That is the real reason that I am 100% confident that victory will come - whether in a month or in a decade - because losing is simply not in the cards. No matter how hard the fight, we are fully and totally invested in this one, unlike Vietnam, where coming home was always an option. We are in this one for the long haul for better or for worse. Yes, but that is directed entirely against foreign populations. Public Affairs covers the domestic side, and there is quite a bit of oversight in what they do. They're pretty incompetent, too. No conspiracies apply to that bunch. Well, they break us down in Basic and AIT, and then build us back up into soldiers. This has more to do with being able to shoulder tough burdens and ignore things which would break normal people apart mentally than it does with any form of mind control. Such activity is not possible anyway in an operational situation as we are in inside Iraq, only in training situations. At any rate, I fail to see the significance of this. Are you trying to say that the troops returning home may have somehow been brainwashed by the Army to only report positive experiences? Hardly. They are normal people, just put in an extraordinary situation. Everyone returning home sits down in a lecture hall and listens to the Public Affairs people give a spiel on what they are and are not supposed to talk about, and every one of them rolls their eyes the entire time, just waiting for the ridiculous attempt at information control to end. We all know it's an attempt at spin control, and we all ignore it, just waiting to get our signature so that we can move onto the next station and get out of there. We talk about whatever we feel like talking about, as long as it doesn't jeapordize security. Obviously, being in the military is going to affect my beliefs somewhat. Curiously, they have not altered them all that much, though... I was like this before I came in. But I think you put too much stock in the military's ability to control its soldiers' thoughts. If that's what they're trying to do, then not only would I be surprised, but I for one must say that they are horrible at it, and should just give it up. People in the military are no more brainwashed than your average American, because they are average Americans, and the Army is not into the brainwashing game.
I can imagine situations in which someone other than Bush was elected, public perception faltered, and we decided to pull a Somalia. I agree that it would be an unthinkably bad idea, but that's never stopped people before. I defer to you on this, but I would be willing to bet that people with a reasonable amount of power have looked at "motive and opportunity" and thought very seriously about how they could turn PsyOps type training and knowledge back inward to make the US Army a more effective fighting force. I don't know the ins and outs of the safeguards, but you can read this Washington Post article and get an idea that people have been thinking similar thoughts. What I am saying is that it wouldn't be inconsistent with US Army behavior to do something that would be considered a short-term affront to the soldiers, if it was deemed that it would make them more effective in the long run in much the same way that the affront of breaking them down in the short term is viewed as a means to a greater good in the long term. To break it down to a simple either/or situation: If the Joint Chiefs of Staff felt that the only way that they could be successfull in protecting American intrests involved actively decieving the troops as well as the American people, would they do it? I would be disapointed if the answer were anything other than "yes". The military operates like an attack dog being held back on a leash. Their position is not to question the rightness or wrongness of an action, or it's longterm benefits. They exist to exert force with unparallelled ferocity when they are unleashed. they are an instrument and pride themselves as being the best instrument that they can.
No, it just seemed appropriate theme music for your post. Otto, I agree with you and didn't intend to give an impression I trust journalists more than military personnel or anyone else. Reporters are human certainly and the entertainment factor of news today can affect how the news is presented. Again though, I have more faith in 1st person investigative accounts whether they be military or media than info that's been passed down through an unknown chain of people.
Getting it straight....( Note, this is just a sample. A full list of tree's erroneous statements about the war in Iraq, WMD, 9011 links, etc. would take quite a while...Not nearly as long as a list of jh statements, however...) *********************************************** Tree on the way the war would evolve, impact on civilians, infrastructure, etc... * " It will be a quick war - possibly as short as 2-5 days, and under no circumstances longer than 2-1/2 weeks." * " This time around we are going to try our utmost to avoid destroying civilian infrastructure sites (electrical, water, communications, bridges/roads/dams, etc). We have other means to temporarily disable them without blowing them up (EMP / microwave bombs, carbon filament munitions, etc) that we will use against such targets if deemed necessary. If at all possible, we will try to leave them alone altogether so such civil services are not disrupted at all, but it is doubtful that we will be able to do so.Still, the damage to civilian infrastructure should be recognizably absent this time around. " *" If fewer than 3000 Iraqi civilians die as a result of our campaign (air and land), then you will quit posting here forever. If more than 3000 Iraqi civilians die as a result of our campaign, then I will quit posting here forever." Tree on the prescence of WMDs in Iraq, how we know better than the UN, and how WMDs will play a role in the opening days f the war, etc... * " We already know where most of his WMD are, and they will be destroyed very quickly; we will not give the UN that information, as it would quickly be passed on to the Iraqis, who would then proceed to move them. Sensitive information has a way of falling into Iraqi Intelligence's hands." * " Let's suppose that it sets back the timetable for US troops by three days. This is reasonable, as much of the 101st - the only unit that could get there on day 1 - will be busy securinmg WMD sites and the like - higher value targets. Do you think that Saddam will be able to blow the oilfields in 3 days' time? I do. How many Kurds do you think that he will be able to slaughter during that time? Halibja (sp?) only took a day." * " Practically every time we've told the inspectors specifics regarding the whereabouts of their WMD sites, the Iraqis have found out about it and cleared the site before the inspectors arrived. The UNMOVIC, just as UNSCOM before it, has leaks. Spies for the Iraqis. This is well known to our intel. Why would we want the Iraqis to move their WMD again? Then we lose track of them, and there's no guarantee that we find them again. This way we can be sure that those we know about right now will be secured before they can be used." Tree's first 2 posts in the post about the actual beginning of the war : *" Ballistic missiles fired at Kuwait. Two missiles intercepted. No word on whether chemical weapons were present. Word is 2 Iraqi divisions negotiating surrender in S. Iraq" and * "Also, an unmanned drone was shot down on its way towards Marine concentrations. We know what their drones are used for. May have tried to gas the Marines." Will he continue to assert that he never said WMDs would be used early on? His burying theory didn't come up until it became evident that the WMDs were nowhere to be found...as shown below... At the beginning of the war, tree posted this: " * There have been persistent reports of huge underground bunker complexes/cities beneath Baghdad for some time. They are reportedly like small underground cities, where the regime can take refuge during hard times and still maintain control. I personally believe that there is truth to these reports (we have already found one such complex at the Baghdad airport and are battling Iraqis there right now), and I suspect that that's where we will find their WMD. Along with who knows what else..." To which I responded thus ... " If he has them...and I used to be pretty sure, now a little less so...but if he has them, and as you say is backed into an extreme corner, and is the lunatic threat we claim, won't we find out about them by his usage of them? I would think that even less 'insane' leaders than SH is portrayed as would use everything they've got were they only a day or two from extinction... Seriuos questions, tree: In your opinion:Why hasn't he used them yet, if he's got em? And if he's anywhere near the madman we say he is, and for some strange reason hasn't used them yet, isn't it a given that he will use everything he's got, and soon?" And his response was this ... " Couple of things to think about: 1) Saddam may no longer be in charge. There are reports that the high command is getting the f* out of dodge, and that Saddam has wisked away his family to Syria. He has yet to make a live appearance anywhere, and every single video released to this point "proving" his continued health and rule has been doubtful, to say the least... Just a possibility at this point. 2) Remember the psyops campaign before the war? One of the cornerstones of that campaign was to communicate two things to the Iraqi military: A) that if they sat out the war, stayed where they were, and didn't oppose us, then they would not be killed. In all the hubbub about the nuisance attacks by the Fedayeen Saddam, the media has failed to report that the vast majority of Saddam's regular army (and a large chunk of Republican Guard) has simply disappeared or stayed put during this war. Eight whole divisions took no discernable action during the war, and have since just disappeared. An entire Corps to the east of the right flank just sat there, refusing orders from Baghdad to attack us (we heard the orders over radio). The III Corps that stood in our way pretty much dissolved after the first two days - everyone just put on civies and went home. B) the Iraqi military was warned that if they were to use chemical weapons against us, they would "be treated as war criminals". What every military person knows is that what this really means is "if you use it, we will be extremely pissed off and will kill you, 100% fer sure"... They know that using it would in effect sign their own death warrants. What incentive do they have to actually use chemical weapons against us at this point? We are well protected against them, and the effect upon our forces would be minimal militarily. It would prompt world outrage. It would expose the regime as full of sh*t where the inspections were concerned. It would mean a death sentence to those commanders who would order its use - people who might otherwise have a decent chance of surrendering and living for a long time yet. What incentive do they have to use such weapons? And even given that the regime's headquarters orders their use, what incentive does the ground commander have to carry out those orders? Should he, A) lob some VX-filled artillery shells at the oncoming US troops and ensure his own death, or B) ignore the orders and wait for the Americans to get close enough to surrender? There's pleny of good reasons why they shouldn't use chemical weapons at this point, and very few why anyone should. Personally, I think people are just refusing orders right now." Note the lack of emphasis on his current 'buried' theory...Only later did he post apply the fact that he had always said they were buried... Treeman on the Iraq 9-11 connection, the fact that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the US, nukes, and combinations thereof... His response to a poster who asks where the proof is that Iraq poses a threat to the US: " Like France and Germany, you are likely in the "nothing at all will convince me short of a mushroom cloud in New York city - followed by a public and personal claim of guilt by Saddam Hussein himself" crowd. The arguments have already been made, yet you simply refuse to acknowledge the (rather straightforward) logic and evidence for it. " Tree's statements, completely in contradiction of the NIE report, that Saddam represented a threat to us via terrorism: * " He *would* give chemical/biological weapons to terrorist groups to use against us. Indeed, he has already trained Ansar Al Islam in the use of chemical weapons, and defectors have reported that he has trained Al Qaeda and other groups in their use at Salman Pak. Do you really think that if he gave them WMD to use against us that that would *not* be cause for war? And keep in mind that he has already trained them to use WMD... why do so if he is not going to give them the tools to do it?" * " It is not a great leap of logic to conclude - *based on past behavior* - that it is highly likely that Saddam will use terrorist outlets to attack us in the future - regardless of whether or not we invade. We *know* that Saddam is a huge supporter of terrorist groups - Salman Pak is not a mythical place concocted by right-wing warmonger conspiracy theorists, we know for a fact that he supports terrorism against Israel (a far lesser foe to him than we are), Ansar al Islam is not a fairy tale either, he regularly publicly proclaims his intent to strike back in the ongoing "Motrher of all battles"... WTF are you so quick to assume that there is no threat? You don't seem to understand that the rules changed on 9/11. We are now no longer going to wait for the other guy to hit first. You think that the prospect of Saddam giving WMD to Al Qaeda-type groups is a joke? That it's all a smoke screen for the administration to take over the world (or a chunk of its oil), and that there really is no threat? You blithely ignore all evidence that points to the threat, and for some god-awful reason assume that Saddam is suddenly going to start acting like a rational human being. Nuts." Tree on any and all factual proofs of Saddam's WMDs, including.... the prop planes: " The more important issue is, of course, the fact that these drones were built in order to deliver chemical/biological weapons. One has to ask why Blix tried to bury this "revelation" in his report to the Security Council. As I mentioned yesterday, it is highly suspicious, and puts his motives into question (if they weren't already before)." and " The more important issue is, of course, the fact that these drones were built in order to deliver chemical/biological weapons. One has to ask why Blix tried to bury this "revelation" in his report to the Security Council. As I mentioned yesterday, it is highly suspicious, and puts his motives into question (if they weren't already before)." and " You're right. Hell, it was probably just a recconaissance drone... " and need I even mention the " 100%" certainty that the helium vans were chemical weapons labs, with the subsequent demands for the anti-war crowd to admit error, apologize, etc? Nah...leave him a bit of dignity... More tree on Iraqi nukes,including a thread of his entitled" Well, waddya know? Saddam really IS trying to build nukes..." In No Worries Thread about the faked uranium documents entitled " Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S", tree responded: " No Worries: One of us is going to look like a fool when this is all over with. Care to make a bet?" ...and later..." Standard bet - if it turns out that Iraq actually has a nuclear program, then you stop posting here. If we find no evidence of one, I stop posting. I know, I've tried to make a similar bet before, but no one will bite..." And still later.." As far as looking like a fool - one of us will after the dust settles. No Worries is now trying to back away from the insinuation that Iraq might not have a nuke program because he realizes how unlikely it is that Saddam is really clean in this regard. I am not going to let him off the hook." On the Iraq/9-11 links: * " There is other evidence that has nothing to do with Mohammed Atta that the Iraqis likely had a hand in 9/11. Again, Salman Pak... There is a 707 fuselage there (we know it is there, we have seen it in satphotos) that defectors claim is used to train groups of 4-6 men to hijack airliners using hand to hand methods and small bladed objects. And Saddam tried to knock down the WTC in 1993 - Ramsi Youssef was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. You figure it out." * " that there is a 707 fuselage parked in a field there that is used to train terrorists to take airplanes hostage using groups of 3-6 men in unarmed combat. Sound familiar? I have maintained for a while that I suspect that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. This would tend to support that idea (although it won't be proven or disproven until we go in there)." * " You know, there's a reason that Iraq was #2 on the sh*tlist - right after Afghanistan. Denying the evidence that Iraq is a major terrorism supporter isn't going to win you anything. It will only make you look like a complete fool in about 3 weeks. *** MacB's note...this was posted months ago...*** * " Irrefutably? What the f* do you want, a signed letter from Osama stating that Saddam has helped him? Evidence has been shown, that there are links. We are battling one piece of that evidence right now in northern Iraq (Ansar Al Islam). Again, you simply refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence. That is your problem." Some interesting stuff on treeman's unique knowledge as it pertains to predicting what Iraq would look like after the invasion. Most interesting was when a poster predicted that, as has happened, Iraq would become a center for terrorist activity for the likes of Al Queda, and anti-US activists would stream into the country...( Note, an amazingly accurate forecast...I wish I'd noted this poster's name, he deserves recognition) Following are the prediction and tree's response to this prediction... Unknown poster: " I'd wager bin Laden would just looooove a US invasion of Iraq, don't you MadMax? He'll assist the Bush admistration in this department. If the US invades Iraq, bin Laden will have oh-so-many enthusiastic new recruits. " treeman: "This is really a ridiculous idea, and I just have to address it. Understand this: those who are willing and able to join Al Qaeda already have. It is not like Al Qaeda has a recruiting booth in downtown Riyhad that is going to be mobbed by pissed off, able-bodied Saudis who weren't sure they wanted to fight until the Iraqi people were liberated. Yes, the Arabs will whine and b**** and scream bloody murder while the bombs are falling, but just as in Afghanistan they will promptly shut the hell up when they realize that 22 million of their neighbors, whom they profess to care about, are freed. Incidentally, the terror threat is not going to increase for much the same reason: Al Qaeda and their associates are already doing their best to kill Americans - they are already giving it their all. It's not like they've just been chilling for the past year, but will suddenly be aroused again once we enter Iraq... They are already working as hard as they can to kill us. These are two of the more ridiculous reasons given by anti-war activists to stay out of Iraq. It does not take a rocket scientist, or even a janitor named Bobby Ray, to see that these arguments have no merit." and later " Where are the mobs that were suppose to flock to Osama after we invaded Afghanistan? Absent. As they will be in the next phase." There is a lot more, obviously, but that's all I feel like now. Clearly this sample of the things tee has said which have been shown to be wholly innacurrate, have never been remotely supported by fact, or are in complete contradiction with what we do know, like the NIE report, etc. will not sway those who continue to think that his position as an enlisted man guarding a depot gives him insight into the overall sceme in Iraq, our policies, and an ability to give accurate analysis of the situation. I will and have conceded two things about tree's enlistment: They give him a superior moral ground in terms of his courage and backing up his beliefs with action, for which I have always and continue to prasie him, and they give him more insight than most of us into day to day particulars of life as a G.I., and probably other particulars like troop movements, weaponry, logistics, etc. But how that translates into his percieved ability to have the best knowledge about the overall situation in Iraq, or to be in a superior position for analysis of same escapes me. To me, a reading of the above statements and others seems to support the contention that his 'unique insight' on those apsects seems remarkably like a parroting of whatever White House press release is most current on any issue, including proofs of WMDs like the tubes, the uranium, the prop planes and the vans... I will end this with one last treeman post, and one I hope he respects as much as I do... " I am wrong about things all the time. When I am wrong about the really big, important things, I do not mind being called a fool. I deserve it. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you're wrong. We all make mistakes. The only time it's wrong is when one continues to do so, even when they know they are wrong." PEACE JAG
1) Several of my 'qualifications' have little or nothing to do with historical applications, like International Relations and Peace and Conflict Resolution, but oh, well... 2) In case you missed it, I never brought up my qualifications as a means of making me an expert, nor as a means of saying they were superior to yours. In fact, I didn't bring them up at all, T_J did, and I responded only to defend myself against his swipe at them. 3) " And you do have an ego problem." Oh, well, if you say so, it must be true...Don't worry about supporting the claim, or anything. I'm getting tired of statements like this, or claims that I say I'm the smartest, etc. Have never said that, or anything like it...I defended my qualifications against insult, period. If that's an ego problem, mea culpa.
Ottomaton: I would just say that I think it would be highly unlikely, and political suicide for anyone who tried it. Even among the panoply of current Democratic contenders for the throne you will find no one who advocates pulling out before the job is done. That is because even they realize that to do so would amount to surrender in the war on terror, something even the most pacifist democrat would be loath to do, if only for the political points to be lost. Highly unlikely, enough so as to be excluded as a reasonable possibility in discussion at this point. I really can't see how this could be done, as the OSI is akin to a civilian PR agency, and they usually deal with external issues. I still can't imagine how the utility of such an endeavor would justify the expenditure of effort, though. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. You credit the military with too much foresight. They are far more concerned about short-term issues and effects, and tend to ignore long-term "pie-in-the-sky" ideas, regardless of their potential benefit. The Army is especially guilty of this, one of their major shortcomings. That's how the military likes to think of itself, and it talks that way, but the reality is that it is an organization full of people, and the same issues that affect other people affect its members as well.
Damn, macbeth, that was a convincing rebuke of treeman, and also proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have a little too much time on your hands. I know you're in Canada and all, but there's got to be something else to do around there somewhere.
Otto... Excellent points. Allow me to break form, however, and sort of defend treeman's position. Yes, Nam showed us what we already knew; that public percepetion is a key component ( historically called a 5th column), as well as other things, such as the fact that troops need to be commited or the effort is ddomed to fail. As such, and this is not new or unique to the US, troops are by definition subjected to an indoctrination which alters their perspective on actions of their government or military. Add to that the fact that the very kind of person who enlists in a volunteer army is predisposed to be pro-government, and it stands to reason that tree, or any other volunteer soldier, will have a fairly automatic pro-govt. slant on actions in the field. As I'm sure you're aware, they have to. In fact, as much as I find tree's automatic support/belief of govt. line on war frustrating in debate, should he have to go over there, I hope he retains that attitude, for his sake. The reason troops like treeman have always and will always be subjected to intense conditioning to reflexivly support the government is because, in the field, to do otherwise costs lives. There is often no time to pause and consider the moral or ethical value of following an order, and thsoe who run the military training of troops know this. Is it surprising, then, that we do indoctrinate them? Or that they are, for the most part, unaware of the effect this process has had on their perspective? Also, as I said, those who sign up are usually ( not always) already down that road on their own. The chain of command breaks down if it is subject to moralizing at every step, and that is intolerable in practice. Those who train our soldiers know this, and account for it before hand. We all are aware of the results. If tree were to head over to Iraq pre-disposed to criticizing our actions there, he would be much more likely to pause when given orders, and that could get him or others killed. Again, for his sake, while I wish he were more open-minded about things from a debate point of view, from a practical/survival point of view I am happy that he toes the party line as trained, if there is any chance of his going over there.
Actually, I am grounded right now. Just injured myself, will probably require surgery, and am pretty much restricted to home for a little while. Am a little down right now, but have more time to devote to those dreaded monster posts...
Doing what you just did without the search function is like copying an illuminated manuscript without the use of a xerox machine. Obviously it's not carpal tunnel that ails you. Just rub some nationalized health care on it and get back in the game, son.
Lol! You wouldn't believe how much I skipped...Leaving out the whole heluim van c*m chem lab thread was partly altruistic, and partly because it was just too damned much pasting. I will say this for tree, though, in retrostpect: He's no johnheath when it comes to having made absolute statements which have totally proven false. If jh ever issues a similar challenge, I will get ct syndrome without doubt if I try and be remotely comprehensive. The up side is I now have a sort of refreshed recollection of things pro-war people said in the past and where should I need to pull them out in further debate. I will say that, even given the heightened tensions of the situation, some of the stuff hurled at me and other anti-war folks just before and during the war make Achebe's latest outburst seem pretty tame. I was surprised how bad it was upon review.
Macbeth: OK, this is going to take a while... Yes, which I later amended to "up to a month, but no longer". As it turned out, it lasted about 3 weeks, so even my original estimate was what, no more than 3-1/2 days off? Oh, the shame!!! Uh, we did, and uh, it was. This is of course relatively speaking. Oil wells - intact. Water facilities - intact. Electrical facilities - left alone this time around. Roads and bridges - left alone, only the retreating Iraqis damaged any. Dude, I was right about this one, why did you bring it up? Well, the final tally is not in, but the number appears to be around 3,000, and that is including those whom the former regime murdered (quite a few, especially those Iraqis who refused to fight). How many were civilians? Who knows. We don't know yet, but it is still a relatively small number considering the scale of what was done. It made my point perfectly, I thought, and just served to ridicule those doom and gloomers who were predicting tens of thousands of casualties. Who turned out to be closer? I was pretty friggen close. Along with the rest of the administration and military, I was wrong about this. Everyone was. We actually did think that we knew where they were, and one of the first things we did was try to raid sites where we thought they were. They had been moved. Most likely during the inspections period, so thanks to everyone who wanted the inspections. And exactly what part of this was wrong? The Iraqis shell-games were well-documented before the war, and It was learned after the war that there were in fact leaks leaks. Another one I was right on, thanks for reminding me. Yes, and look what happened: they were moved again, and we lost track of them. Again, thanks a bunch to those who wanted the inspections to go on. Uh, ballistic missiles were fired at Kuwait. They were intercepted. Why do you keep posting this stuff? I thought this was supposed to be a post of stuff I was wrong about??? OK, so it turned out that only one division surrendered. The other just disappeared, its soldiers either being captured or melting into the populace. Excuse the f* out of me for not seeing with crystal clarity through the fog of war. I'll be sure to tune my psychic battle-demystifier onto "high" next war around. A number of Iraqi drones were shot down during the war. In hindsight they were probably just recon drones, but at the time intel said they may have been used for WMD chemical dispersal. As I said then intel is often wrong. Excuse me for relying on intel, and using the word "may" in my post. Sue me. I had an entire thread on the subject, Macbeth, explaining why I did not personally think that they would be used. I am too lazy to look it up, and am not really sure what to use in a search, as the phrases "WMD", "war", etc would simply bring up a hundred different threads, and it would take forever to search them all. Perhaps if you persist in this line I'll gett off my lazy butt and find it... Curious that you appear to have some knowledge that they were not buried somewhere. I am truly curious as to how you arrived at such a conclusion, as we have not dug for them anywhere, have not even finished searching suspected sites on our list, and we know for a fact that that is exactly what the Iraqis tried to do during the UNSCOM period. Tell me, how do you know this? Have you been talking with any former Baath officials, because they are the only ones who could positively affirm your assertion here... Yes, and the underground complexes were there. It took about a week of subterranean battle to take the ones we knew about. We are still finding them, and we have no idea what is in those we have not uncovered (we have not found them all). So far we have found torture chambers, hideaways for Baath officials, huge weapons caches, mountains of documents - many of which Kay and his team are currently poring over... But to answer your point, the com[plexes were there, and we haven't even found them all yet. What was your point with this one again? To which I responded something along the lines of, as I'm sure you remember: There could be a number of explanations, the most likely one that they are inacessible because they were moved to safe places and hidden so that the inspectors (or American invaders) wiould not find them. There may be two people in the whole country who actually know where they are. There could be a hundred. I wouldn't put it past Saddam to murder everyone involved in the logistics of hiding them (construction workers, engineers, architects, movers, etc) immediately after moving them. We know that he engaged in similar measures in the past. Another possibility that turned out to be largely true. Saddam apparently lost control as we were approaching Baghdad, as many of those we have captured have confirmed happened. And a good many Baath party officials did in fact flee to Syria; Syria actually turned some of them over to us, and sent a number of others back, as many of the "Deck of Cards" members have told us. Uh, another one I was apparently pretty much right on. We bought off some commanders and scared the crap out of others, so that most of them simply laid down their arms and let us pass. Why are you posting this as an example of something I was wrong about? That whole section turned out to be dead-on accurate. Not a real great example of my "dead-wrongness", but thanks for posting it anyway. And this invalidates my "buried theory" exactly how? It does no such thing. The ideas are still consistent. No matter how many times I say the word inevitable, Macbeth deems every single time to morph it into the word "imminent". I wonder if that is a purposeful misdirection or an honest error? Since I keep pointing it out, I have to think it is purposeful... I'm sorry, was I supposed to just keep repeating myself? I have listed the reasons for this at least a dozen times on this board, and I hardly think that the 13th time would make someone who simply didn't get it suddenly get it. And exactly how is this an example of my "dead-wrongness"? It's not even a prediction. And uh, another one I was right on? We know that the reports about Ansar and the cyanide and chlorine training they recieved from Iraqi Intelligence were accurate, so this is another one I was right about. Thanks. Well, we will never know now whether or not Saddam will use terrorism to strike us if we do not invade (since we have invaded, of course), but we do know for a fact that he's using it against us right now. Another I was pretty much right on about. Thanks. And do I need to remind you that we have uncovered a number of terrorist training camps in the war's wake - Salman Pak included? Obviously, they were abandoned when we got there, but the infrastructure was plain to see... What, were you expecting a bunch of flag-waving terrorists to be standing at the gates of Salmon Pak, ready to be taken into custody? OK, this one I was wrong on, apparently. At least, the drones we have found to date have been recon drones, although we have not found the specific ones (L-39 converts) that we knew existed at one time and suspected as being modified for WMD dispersal. The jury is out on those until we find them or find out what happened to them, but... I will concede that the drones found to date appear to have been designed for recon. When the CIA comes out and says they were wrong, then I will admit that I was wrong. Until then the idea that they were actually mobile hydrogen production plants used to fuel nonexistent artillery weather balloons that the Iraqis hadn't used in over a decade is simply silly, and I maintain that the CIA's evaluation is the accurate and logical one. And curiously, no one has yet to explain exactly why the Iraqis had a nuclear program when they had enough oil to last them thousands of years. Curiously, no one has refuted the documents found regarding the nuke program's existence, they have been snugly pushed to the side and forgotten in the debate. And curiously, no one seems to understand the significance of the gas centrifuge found buried in the scientist's backyard. It has only one use. I am still waiting for No Worries to acknowledge the meaning of that find. He doesn't appear to want to talk about it. And, uh, it was there. It's footprint is still there in the field where it was photographed; the plane was obviously disposed of in the weeks leading up to the war. Another thing I was right about, thanks.
I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but... this statement implies a sort of soldier/citizen ethic that is basically quite impossible. In other words, if you are implying that the average soldier=the average American in terms of outlook and ethos, I'd have to say that you are uncatagorically wrong. From the ROTC people I knew in college as well as the ROTC fraternity brothers I had in TKE at WUStL, to my recently deceased aunt the Lt. Colonel/Pathologist to all of the people whom I've known that have enlisted, people in the army enter the army with a particular pragmatical moral realism/relativism, and this particular moral stance is only reinforced in military service. In fact, I see the same attributes in you. Everybody I know who embraces the military ethos seems to revel in their ability to focus on the job at hand while ignoring larger moral issues. Those who can't leave and complain about those who can. McBeth, I worry because what you said basically paraphrases what I said, yet you feel the need to ostensibily disagree with me. I wonder if this is some sort of knee-jerk anti-Ottomaton response to past conflicts between you and I -- just in case, I want you to know that I value your opinion and appreciate all you have to say. Anyway, treeman, I just want to reiterate that you are just about the only hawkish/conservitivesqe person on this board whose opinion I do appreciate and accept. I really do consider you one of the very few conservative types around here who approaches these discussions without immerseing yourself in the dogmatic intractability that I see in a couple of other individuals with whom I disagree.
Ottomaton: Obviously, there are some differences (Macbeth actually sort of hit on that somewhat accurately; the soldiering experience tends to make one more supportive of govt's actions, although there are exceptions), but for the most part most soldiers are simply normal people. You have to keep in mind that every soldier was once a civilian, and every soldier will at some point once again be a civilian. We are not that different. You're probably right about that. I keep forgetting that that 'pragmatical moral realism' is not necessarily normal. It just seems what "normal" is to me. My perception there is probably not accurate; I keep forgetting that not everyone is pragmatic, moral, or a realist. Ignoring larger moral issues? Hell, it is those larger moral issues that compel many of us to enlist. If anything, you have that part backwards, unless I misunderstand your meaning here. Of course, the Army wants us to operate as machines, do what we're told, and not ponder those larger issues, but as human beings we of course do. It is unavoidable. That would probably be because I'm not a party-line conservative. Most conservatives would call me a liberal... Of course to most liberals I am a "neocon" (I know its meaning, and it is not accurate in my case, but whatever, it's just a label). In truth, I am similar to Arnold in my color - conservative on most security issues, including immigration, but pretty liberal on most social issues. Perhaps because I'm not a party-line conservative (not even a Republican) that makes me easier to converse with? For the record, I can't figure you out. Not that I think labels particularly matter...
