Say Anything Blog

So much ignorance from an arm chair quarterback.  Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.  This was not the incompetence of the military but of the civilian leadership, particularly Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight with smaller less expensive forces.

Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.

Does it compare in size and scope to what we are doing now?

When you’re done telling Rob how ignorant he is, maybe you can start to look at the big picture here.

Lestat:

Our military has been fighting insurgencies for decades.

That is true, but the military doctrine developed by Petraeus and others is new.

This was not the incompetence of the military but of the civilian leadership, particularly Rumsfeld, who wanted to fight with smaller less expensive forces.

I agree with you that the civilian leadership, especially Donald Rumsfeld, played an important role in “getting us where we are now”.  Obviously that is a fact.  Some of the things I point to are the ignoring of all of the pre-war planning within the Pentagon and State Department , the disbandment of the Iraqi Army and the overly zealous de-Ba’athification process.

While I would have supported a larger invasion force, predominantly to maintain peace after the war, it is not obvious that this wouldn’t have had its own set of unintended consequences.

If you look at the biggest problem that was addressed by the change in strategy in the Petraeus document, that involved placing our troops in the cities and not leaving.  This didn’t require a huge increment in military forces, but a refocussing of the mission there.

So much ignorance from an arm chair (sic) quarterback

Meaning yourself, I presume.

I should note that point wasn’t to say that we didn’t make any mistakes with the invasion of Iraq.  We did, clearly.  But there’s no questioning that the initial invasion (which is separate from the post-invasion occupation for the purposes of this discussion) was an unmitigated success.  We achieved our objective - the defeat of Saddam’s forces and the capture of Iraq - quickly and with little cost to our own forces.

However, once the invasion was over we made a lot of the mistakes Carrick noted (and, to be clear, a lot of those mistaken decisions were made during pre-war planning).

But my point here is to say that our military is evolving to face modern threats.  We’ve faced insurgencies before, but none like what we’re facing in the middle east.  It’s a new situation, and Petraeus’ approach to it is new as well.

A couple of years ago I read an article about the Pentagon formulating plans to re-deploy our military globally from cold-war ear positions to positions more in tune with facing threats from Islamic extremism (among other things).  I don’t know what ever became of that initiative (I haven’t heard anything about it for some time) but I consider that to be the same sort of evolution as I described above.

And as for my being an armchair General, seems to me that as a free citizen of a free nation I have as much right to an opinion about military affairs as any General.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The snag came before the invasion:

“There is bullet-proof evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein.”

Donald Rumsfeld

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

-George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent…. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

And continued into the occupation:

“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”

Donald Rumsfeld

And what was the news the other day?

U.S. Military Concludes No Saddam Link to Al Qaeda

The study, which was due to be released Wednesday, found no “smoking gun” or any evidence of a direct connection between Saddam’s Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

The report is based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion.  It is also based on thousands of hours of interrogations of former top officials in Saddam’s government who are now in U.S. custody.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Not that things like “facts” and “reason” matter much to you, boob, but there is a difference between “links” and “direct operational links.”

Saddam had links to al Qaeda, but none that were direct and operational in nature.

But hey, whatever is convenient for your agenda of the moment right?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Tell it to the pentagon, rube.

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used ‘grave and gathering’ threat. 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, Feb. 10, 2003

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

And now you’re changing the subject.  McClellan was talking about WMD’s.  We were talking about al Qaeda.

And before we invaded Iraq could have been an imminent threat for all we knew.  Certainly just about every elected politician in America - both Republican and Democrat - felt Iraq had WMD’s.  We didn’t find out otherwise until afterward.

But regardless, removing Saddam from power was a good idea in general.  Not, again, that things like “facts” and “reason” are going to sway you, right genius?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s all tied to the pack of lies bushco sold his war on.
It’s the snag before the invasion.

There were many inside our intelligence services that disagreed as did the inspectors on the ground right before bush invaded a country that did not attack us.

Not to mention the generals who spoke about the forces necessary to win the war and control the pop after the invasion. To bad your bush didn’t listen to the generals then. They “retired”. And now Fallon quits?
But don’t let the actual facts get between you and your box of Cheetos. 

Neo-cons do not crack me up.

I think B. Hussein Obama spoke out against the invasion.

Kinda make him look now good, doesn’t it?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Our enemies change their tactics and we must not only keep up but be one or two steps ahead.  We changed to defeat the JAPS when they hid in caves and that got flame throwers involved.  Not many armies will meet us in open fields.  That is one reason that Donald Rusmfeld cancelled the artillery buy, and justly so.

Communism is evil

RBB:

There were many inside our intelligence services that disagreed as did the inspectors on the ground right before bush invaded a country that did not attack us.

Very few actually at the time.  Most of them changed their tune after the invasion and the failure to find WMD.  It was an operational belief on the part of almost all world intelligence organizations at the time that Saddam was hoarding WMD.  They were wrong, but that doesn’t make “bushco” a liar.

Why do you always have to be infantile by the way.  “bushco” “raygun” etc.

Only little children talk that way.

Intelligence for Bushco
was the pentagon Office of
Special Plans. Wolfowitz & Feith
presiding. Their job was criticism
of the CIA.
Their findings were the gospel
of preemptive war.
It was their bullshit
Bushco yelled across the media.

It is what sticks to Bushcos shoes.
Either they were liars or morons.
They ain’t stupid.

What utter bullshit, WOOF.  It has been “known” that Iraq was hoarding WMDs since 1998.  See this speech.

The only people lying are you liberals, and everybody here knows it.

Carrick blames Bill C circa1998

The real deal 2002

Since the arrival of the first inspectors in Iraq on 27 November 2002, UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections covering approximately 350 sites, 44 of which were new.  All inspections were performed without notice and, in virtually all cases, access was provided promptly..

After three months of intrusive inspections, he stated that the IAEA had to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.  The Agency intended to continue its inspection activities, making use of all the additional rights granted to it by resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to it.  The Agency also hoped to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to its mandate.  He noted that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq had been forthcoming in its cooperation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern.  He hoped that Iraq would continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation.

Inspections , How Embarrassing

WOOF, I’m not blaming anybody, and that’s a really feeble attempt to change the subject by the way.

All I’m saying is the correct historical framework is that indeed it was though since the late 1990’s that Saddam was hoarding WMD.  They were almost certainly wrong about that, but that doesn’t make them liars.

Regarding the IEAE, while I generally accepted their findings, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Someday maybe you will understand that little gem, which the lucky among us scientists get exposed to in our research methods class.

*** thought

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So let’s start a war!

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Nobody started a war over the absence of evidence, but still this is a good example of lefty anti-intellectualism on Master Bater’s part.

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I’ve never been sold on the Downing Street Memos.  They were written from one individual’s perspective, and others who attended the meetings disputed many aspects of them.  Had they been actual transcripts, that would have been much more informative.  These were basically an entirely subjective account, what amounts to a personal diary version of what transpired.

In any case, take statements like “There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” How would this guy have known what discussions of the “aftermath after military action” were going in in Washington? 

In any case, the aftermath had been considered since at least 1998.  Now if you want to say these discussions were ignored by Rumsfeld, I’d go with that assertion. 

I’m pretty sure in any case that the decision to go to war was made well in advance of Bush’s speech before congress prior to the passage of the AUMF.  That would logically follow wouldn’t it?  Summer 2002 sounds about right, though he still needed congressional approval to go ahead with his plans.

In any case, to address why you bothered to post the quote, it’s seriously difficult to argue that the intelligence had been fixed around the decision to go to war, when there was no serious shift in the general intelligence consensus since circa 1998.

The facts don’t line up with your narrative, not that this has ever stopped you or WOOF from pedaling your BS in the past.

Fair enough

But they were one individual’s contemporaneous perspective of what was going on in the room at the time. I have not read perspectives from others in the same room at the same time that reflects a different view.

In hind sight though….someone was right and someone was not right and we went to war.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Actually his characterizations have been widely disputed, starting with Tony Blair himself.

In any case, I’ve always though the decision to go to war was flawed. I personally have always disputed the value of the intelligence claiming there was WMD. 

I once even had a very animate discussion (fall 2002) with somebody in the British military, who clearly had been given a briefing on it.  He thought I was hopelessly naive, and probably wished I had the clearance to discuss this on a different level.  My skepticism, in case you are interested, was based on the historical analogy of Hitler’s ghost armies.  Hitler was moving markers on a map that had no army associated with them.

I think the reason that Saddam often acted as if he had a WMD threat was because he really thought he did.  This phenomenon is pretty typical of what takes place in totalitarian regimes.  The guys on top hear what they want to hear, not what is really happening.  I think that Saddam thought almost to the end that the US military invasion would be stopped and pushed back.  That’s the trouble with believing your own press.

Anyway, whether the decision to go to war was a good one or otherwise, it’s obviously a done deal.  We aren’t rolling back history now.  What’s important now from an operational point is where we go from here, not whether we should have gone to war 5 years ago.  That’s where Obama’s ideas fall totally flat with me. He needs to frame his ideas around the best future policy, not whether the 2003 war should have ever happened.

boob, perhaps you should actually read,"Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.” from the report. Instead of spewing the same leftarded propaganda as ABC and CBS. Just a thought, and the PDF, to give you some facts to go with your crow.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Pussycat, it’s interesting that you went to an ABC site to get the IDA report.

But that’s typical of you.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

pussycat, that is the doc that confirmed Rummy’s buddy Saddam had no Al Queda ties.

Where is Osama?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I cannot believe how things played out in Iraq.  I remember riding through the streets of Baghdad during the initial invasion of Iraq.  I can honestly say that a large majority of Iraqi citizens where overjoyed that we were there.  One of the proudest moments in my life was riding down the streets Baghdad seeing people celebrate the end of oppression under the rule of Saddam Hussein. 
I know things are not going the way visioned them when the planning was done but some good has happened.  While you all bicker about the reasoning for us going to war with Iraq keep in mind on fact.  Saddam Hussein has hung for all the wrongs in his life and the world has the U.S. military to thank. 
Semper Fi

I am GLAD we went to war with Iraq.  I know it’s not politically correct to say so, but here is what has happened for the better (IMHO):

A madman murderer of Kurds and political opponents hung at the end of a rope.  This same madman attacked Israel with Scuds.  His end and his two evil sons were worth it.

We (the USA) now have a strategic presence in the Middle East which WE can control.  This will be a real asset and deterant if we don’t end up with a President Barak who will screw it up.  President Hillary and McCain understand the situation.

Islam has been show up for the bankrupt fractured religious system it is as practiced in the Middle East.  I have just received a report from the Middle East last Thursday from an Authority that Islam is rotting from the inside out.

The Iranians while they made incursions into Iraq have now come to grips with a mighty American Presence there.

Oil is flowing, so much so, that the government of Iraq has money they don’t know what to do with.

People are becoming safe.  Refugees are returning (slowly).  Business is rebuilding.

Al Quida is in collapse.  They complain about it all the time.  Osama is still dead.

Sure I can name trouble spots.  Turkey incursions into Kurdistan.  Militias most of whom are stepped down.  Incompetent Graft filled government. And other things.

But on balance, I think we did a good thing going to war.  If i could turn back the hands of time and had President Bush’s ear I would advise him to do it again but go with much more vigor.  Execute Saddam at once.  Take Out Al Sadar and put Soldiers at the border of Iran with missiles pointed at them.

Rattle a few sabers.

And, I would capture all that Oil Money.  Payback.  Screw the national community. 

I’m know I’m a terrible WARMONGER. But, I’m glad after 5 years we did it.  The world will never be the same in more ways that we know.  Bush will be considered one of the great presidents of all time by History.

I stil wish for four more years.

the AVATAR
Old Tigers are more dangerous when they believe this could be their last hunt.

From , “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”
Old tigers, sensing the end,
they’re at their most fierce. 
And they go down fighting.

Again boob refuses to actually read the report. It clearly states that Saddam DID have connections to terrorist groups, including Al Queda. And the small fact that Saddam said he supported terrorist groups, another point boob refuses to acknowledge.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Oh, and where is Osama? You haver yet to prove he is alive. And I wonder, all that money you send to his “foundation”, is it tax deductible?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

We (the USA) now have a strategic presence in the Middle East which WE can control.

Thank you for admitting you want an imperialist America. Funny that’s what they want too. Good for recruiting and all, ya know.

Oil is flowing, so much so, that the government of Iraq has money they don’t know what to do with.

They could pay for our occupation – like bushco boys told us they would.

People are becoming safe.  Refugees are returning (slowly).  Business is rebuilding.

This just in:

Millions of Iraqis have little or no access to clean water, sanitation and healthcare, five years after the US-led invasion, according to the Red Cross.

Huh, The Red Cross says that, interesting no?

Al Quida is in collapse.  They complain about it all the time.  Osama is still dead.

Really? Does bush know about this?

Sure I can name trouble spots.  Turkey incursions into Kurdistan.  Militias most of whom are stepped down.  Incompetent Graft filled government. And other things.

Ya know, little things like that…Oh, it doesn’t hurt that Al Sadr issued a cease fire almost a year ago does it?

And, I would capture all that Oil Money.  Payback.  Screw the national community. 

I spy a wee problem there, cowboy.

Bush will be considered one of the great presidents of all time by History.

Ok then, anyone for cookies?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Thank you for admitting you want an imperialist America.

RBB,

So… having a strategic presence as Gene described now constitutes imperialism in your jaundiced eyes?  What an incredibly stupid thing to say… even for you!!!

Is the US imperialist because we still have troops in Kosovo, 10 years after the idiot who sent them said they’d be home?  We have military forces deployed all over the Far East, including South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines.  Do those deployments make us imperialists?  The North Koreans have nuclear weapons with which to threaten their neighbors, thanks largely to the inane “Agreed Framework” of 1994, and their communist Chinese benefactors have both nukes and an MIRV capability in exchange for their support of a certain president’s reelection bid in 1996.

Then there’s Europe.  There’s been some mindless chatter from the Left about American imperialism vis-a-vis Europe, but there’s no indication that the Europeans, the old ones in particular, are willing to assume the burden of their own defense.  And every time there is any sort of talk about a drawdown of US forces in Europe, the Social Democrats scream bloody murder at the loss of economic stimulus and the necessity of increasing their own defense expenditures.

Screaming “imperialism” is an old, discredited radical Left bit of rhetoric, usually reserved for those who have little of substance to offer, but are enamored of the sound of their own smarmy voice.  You seem to fit the bill on both accounts.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Here are the facts:

A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein’s willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

Broken record time:  Saddam actively fomented acts of terrorism.  He did not have close ties to the al Qaeda brand of terrorism, simply because Saddam wanted to be seen as the rescuer of the Arab peoples.  Al Qaeda was a competitor of Saddam, not an ally.  That doesn’t mean they didn’t share intelligence (they did) but what it does mean is that Saddam had no interest in funding or actively aiding al Qaeda.

Secondly, it’s called the Global War on Terror for a reason, not just the Global War on Al Qaeda. 

Finally, examples of Saddam’s art:  A check to the family of a suicide bomber:

The suicide bombers handiwork:

A fourteen year old American girl who was on the bus:

So here we have an example of clear funding of a terrorist, who deliberately killed civilians, including a 14 year old girl.  There’s a reason we call it the Global War on Terror.  Not everybody who is a victim suffers at the hands of Al Qaeda.  Many others are victims of organizations funded by Iran and former by Iraq.

RBB:

Millions of Iraqis have little or no access to clean water, sanitation and healthcare, five years after the US-led invasion, according to the Red Cross.

Many of those problems are due to 30 years of neglect of the infrastructure by that bloody totalitarian leader that you lefties keep trying to shill for.  Most of the rest are because the same terrorists who line up children on soccer fields and kill them (they shouldn’t be playing soccer) are also targeting civilian infrastructure.

And RBB and Obama want’s us to leave them alone.  Because Al Qaeda In Iraq isn’t in Iraq yet is it?  I’d laugh if your ignorance wasn’t so painful to view.

… it is not obvious that this wouldn’t have had its own set of unintended consequences.

Thanks Carrick.  A genuine attempt at evenhandedness and appreciation of history is rare on the internet.

Thanks, FlyOnTheWall.  I get tired of people second guessing difficult decisions when they have relatively limited amount of information available to them, compared to the people who made the original decision.  While I may have disagreed with the decision initially to invade, after the decision has been made, it is in all of our interests to put our egos aside and work towards the best possible outcome for our country.

To expand on the “unintended consequences” there are two obvious one.  On is a massive US presence might have quickly led to a full-scale true insurgency involving both the Sunnis and the Shi’ite populations, and certainly much more hardened Arab response to such a large scale occupation.

Secondly, if we had a lot more troops, we would have had an exponentially larger number of deaths (many more targets).  Instead of 100 deaths per month, we might be looking at 2500 per month, e.g., Vietnam scale loses.

Beyond that, one of the key failures was the failure to not hold the towns after we captured them.  This is reminiscent of the early US strategy used in Vietnam.  Obviously this was a failure of the military, not the civilian command.  And it was remedied by a small increase in troop size so that we could sustain bases inside of occupied towns.

Arguing that a massive increase in US presence would “obviously fix things” is both blind to the problems associated with the larger force size, as well as blind to the fact the it was a failure in strategy at the military command level that has led to our current situation there.  That isn’t fixable to throwing more troops at it.

It was fixed by putting our heads together, involving both civilian leaders as well as military ones, then selecting the plan most likely to succeed. I emphasize that, because all of the Democrat’s plans seem to involve how to get us to fail as quickly as possible.

That is the type of new leadership that we need?

Simply put, every military engagement changes the military. Because every military engagement is totally different from the one before it, and the one following it.

The old saw,"Generals are always preparing to fight the last war” is no less true for being trite.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Secondly, if we had a lot more troops, we would have had an exponentially larger number of deaths (many more targets).

Early on it was claimed by the screechers that sending as many troops as we did was too much and giving too many targets causing the ill will of the populace. 
I tune out the people who can only accuse.  Same problem with de-Baathification. 

Something did go wrong early on.  We were met with flowers by a happy and free Iraqi people.  That lasted 2 - 3 months, when a marine could literally think nothing of going into a barber for a straight razor shave.  I’ve got no answers for what went wrong there (neither did the marine.)

I was on the fence too for the Iraq invasion.  The deciding factor for me was, we went in, we have to finish.  Another Somalia or Beirut barracks is a catastrohe.

For the current successes, I put a lot of that down to; AQ tortured and murdered enough to disgust its supporters AND we slowly develped a database of bad guys to catch.