Wall Street Journal- Why Didn't Bush Admin. Pull Trigger on Zarqawi

Dunno why the gung-ho rwaaar Bush leaguers didn't hit Zarqawi's camp, but I do know that if it was an outpost of the oil ministry, they'd have been protecting it!

 

For those of you who poo-poo the whole coalition building premise: it would appear that in this case building a coalition was more important than dusting a known AQ camp.

This one was a tough call; damned if you do, damned if you don't. W could have stuck to his guns and newly declared policy of pre-emption, and struck the camp. But that would have totally crippled his efforts to build a coalition for a coming war. So W decided to put off the strike until after beginning the war, which was too late. Now Zarqawi is the number one pit-bull on our ass.

On the other hand, if W wasn't dead set on an invasion and all the politiking necessary to do it, he would have been much freer to do a small-scale strike like that.

 

How is it a tough call? I completely disagree. This is exactly the sort of thing we should have been doing in conjunction with the war in Afghanistan... striking terrorist camps, wherever they might be, and especially those which had a connection to al-Qaeda. And it's exactly how Kerry wants to fight this war on terror.

Why not use the assets we had? Why not use the Special Forces, inserted within striking distance of the camp, to follow up a multiple B-2 bomber attack to level it? What on god's green earth were they thinking? That this would somehow "interfere" with an invasion of Iraq?? That our "allies" would somehow be offended?? Ludicrous. If that were the case, then it is yet another reason why it was a terrible policy decision by the Bush Administration to invade and occupy Iraq. Frankly, I think it's not that complicated. It's damned incompetence.

And to think that this idiot's team is supposed to keep us safe, and that Bush's "brilliance" and "steadfastness" in prosecuting the War on Terror amounts to the main reason he's supposed to be re-elected. Unbelievable.

The country is in the grip of madness.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

I like how we are so keen on getting terrorists according to Bush but we are scared of striking at them in Pakistan.

 

Woofer, I'm glad you responded to gifford's thread, but we are not talking about Pakistan. It was in northeastern Iraq, outside of Saddam's control, where we had located Zarqawi's camp, which was full of his supporters and al-Qaeda fighters. This is according to the Wall Street Journal, not one of the newspapers or media sources that Bush's supporters would automatically dismiss as "biased." And this was prior to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I have seen post after post from members who are ardent Bush backers, seemingly no matter what he does, who have vilified Clinton for "lobbing a few cruise missles at some tents in Afghanistan, and thinking he was doing something about Osama bin Laden." And yet here we see a ripe target, with known connections to AQ, right in the "No Fly" zone in northeastern Iraq, and what did Bush Do?

What did he do? Nothing.

"Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.


But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began."


And Bush's supporters think he is doing a good job? Has done a good job after Afghanistan? Did as much as he could before the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Are they deaf, dumb, and blind??



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Running the War on terror the Tommy way.

 

This blunder goes right up there with Clinton not taking out Bin Laden.


Typical work by lousy leaders.

DD

 

Citing "military officials," the original NBC report explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was based on domestic politics: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could undermine its case for war against Saddam."

This is from Krugman of today. Very worthwhile on the explosive and this isue as excamples of the continual cover up wrt to how well the war is being waged.

I remember going around and around on this issue with Mango and others. This camp was the main thing cited to by Cheney and others as proof that Sadam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, though the camp was in the Kurdish area controlled by the Kurds and our air force.

krugman

 

how Bush can look at the American people and honestly say that he will do anything to get the terrorist is beyond me

it is irrefutable that Bush has

- diverted funds, men, intelligence and attention away from the real terrorist that attacked us

- ignore a known terrorist camp


all for the sole reason of invading Iraq

unspeakable ineptness

 

you understand that bush's argument, whether you agree with it or not, is that if you can create a real democracy in Iraq that it works toward the systemic causes and problems of the extremism that's coming from the Middle East, right?

so you can say that he's diverted funds and attention from the real problem...and i think that's a fair argument...but the reponse is that he's taken a bigger approach to fighting this problem than just fighting hot spots.

 

Does seem to be quite a glaring mistake. But then there are no shortage of mistakes made by the administration, even if you support the intervention, as I do.

-not enough troops
-dismantling Iraqi army
-failure to hit Zarqawi


In Clinton's defense, he wanted to put boots on the ground to attack AQ in Afghanistan but was talked out of it by the Pentagon.

 

Max, putting aside whether or not we agree that Bush's idea for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a good idea or not, how could hitting Zarqawi and his camp have any affect on that invasion that was worth not taking action?

I just fail to see any credible link, or cause and affect, between these two, separate actions.


Keep D&D Civil!!
And Vote!

 

deck, frankly i don't know. i really don't know enough about that specific issue.

my post was entirely in reponse to the one immediately preceding it from Chump.

 

Max, you know what I think about the current administration, but this call just has me flabbergasted. Heck, given what was going on at the time, and what we were supposed to be doing to protect the country, and strike terrorists, wherever they are, I'm truly astonished. I would say speechless, but I don't think that's possible.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

yes, the neo-con theory is as you stated, but dont you think the #1 priority should be to strike terrorists wherever and whenever ?

how does letting this guy and his camp fester further the long-term goal of eliminating radical Islamic terrorism?

if this camp was right outside Baghdad I could maybe see the point that bombing it early would somehow hinder Bush's attempt to build a collalition, but this camp was inside the US no-fly zone. We had been bombing stuff in this zone for years.

 

I absolutely feel your pain. I have felt this way for a long time now and I am almost worn out. I have faith that all will be well post November 2nd 2004 when the wrong of November 2004 will finally be corrected.

There is even more good news - the "truth and lies" of this administration will even come out some more after this election when all the reviews and inventory is taken.

 

We argued about this exact fact before we invaded Iraq and when we invaded Iraq. Why is the WSJ finally waking up and doing it's job now?

 

i was just trying to understand your point of view and explain the other side's, Chump.

your argument is compelling...no doubt about that. but i thought you were assuming that Bush intentionally and knowingly ignored terrorism to go deal with Iraq. i think he would argue that the two go hand in hand.

 

I wonder if Zarqawi is even in Fallujah any longer. We don't know for certain that he is, although that's been the focus of reports regarding his location.

Oct. 28, 2004, 12:39AM

Insurgency forces gripping Ramadi
Officials say military is losing control of this crucial region
By EDWARD WONG
New York Times

RAMADI, IRAQ - The U.S. military and the interim Iraqi government are quickly losing control of this provincial capital, which is larger and strategically more important than its sister city of Fallujah, say local officials, clerics, tribal sheiks and U.S. Marines officers.


"The city is chaotic," said Sheik Ali al-Dulaimi, a leader of the region's largest tribe. "There's no presence of the Allawi government," he added, speaking of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

While Ramadi is not exactly a "no go" zone for the Marines, like Fallujah 30 miles to the east, officers say it is fast slipping in that direction. Guerrillas have stepped up assassinations of Iraqis working with the Americans, and Marine officials say they suspect Iraqi security officers have been helping insurgents to attack their troops. Reconstruction efforts have ground to a halt because no local contractors are willing to work.

Most of the military's resources are channeled into controlling a bomb-infested, four-and-a-half-mile stretch of road that runs through downtown and connects two bases. Insurgents pop out of alleyways, mosques and a crowded market and fire at Marines at will, then disappear when the Americans give chase.


Ramadi, a city of 400,000, lies at the heart of rebellious Anbar province and astride the major western supply route to Baghdad.

The city is seen as crucial to American efforts to plant a secular democracy in Iraq. But the disintegration of authority puts in jeopardy the Bush administration's plan to stage nationwide elections by Jan. 31.

It also complicates the U.S. military's plans to invade Fallujah, because of the close coordination between insurgents in the two cities.

With a powerful mix of propaganda and intimidation, well-financed guerrillas have turned the people of Ramadi against the American occupiers and their allies, Iraqis and Marines here say.

"The provincial government is on the verge of collapse," said 2nd Lt. Ryan Schranel, whose platoon does 24-hour guard duty at the besieged government center opposite the main bazaar.

"Just about everybody has resigned or is on the verge of resigning."

The provincial governor, Muhammad Awad, who doubles as the city's mayor, took office after the previous governor resigned in early August following the kidnapping of his three sons, and after a deputy governor was kidnapped and killed.

Compounding the problems, guerrillas have been streaming in since the Marines stepped up airstrikes against the mujahedeen in Fallujah, Marine officials say.

The power vacuum here also complicates plans for an invasion of Fallujah, which has a population of up to 300,000, because Ramadi could well become a haven for retreating guerrillas.



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/2870280



Keep D&D Civil!!