The Current Situation In Iraq

[The Scotsman]

Thank you for your imput, and hoist a Guiness for me when you go to the pub.

.....hate the stuff, my favorite is an Indian beer called Cobra..you get that in the US? ...anyway, thanks for the thought and I certainly will be hoisting some beers albeit not Guiness

Just returning to some of your points, Bunz makes a very valid point in that both the UK and US intelligence services had no CREDITABLE agents in place in Iraq - I've stressed the word creditable because the few sources they had and were subsequently cited were known to be unreliable and, certainly in the UK, evidence from those sources were given more weight than the intelligence services said should be given. Remember that those countries with traditional ties to Iraq were all saying the opposite to what the UK/US were saying! France and Germany where all saying that there was nothing of interest there and they should know because they traditionally supplied Saddam with his Chemical Weapons in the first place!

To some extent you are right when you allow the politicians their deniability. Various “sources” were saying that there was evidence of munitions in Iraq but these people where either not in an authoritative position and were passing on rumour or hearsay or plain made it up as happened in most cases to satisfy information requests. The problem, certainly in the UK, was that a case had to be put to the people to convince them that going to war was the right thing to do. The Government produced this dossier purporting to prove their case, however, it is now generally accepted that it made up of fragments of information tailored and manipulated to prove evidence existed. You will no doubt remember the debacle and white washed report into the death of Dr. Paul Kelly and the journalist Andrew Gilligan and the "sexed-up" dossier. This report was presented to the people and Parliament and was in effect a fabrication or at best a distortion of reality as no caveats appeared explaining the lack of quality of the information or indeed the provenance of that information. It transpired that undue weight was given to the more salacious information rather than building up an honest assessment.

Thus technically you are right that the politicians had their deniability and could legitimately point to the intelligence services as being at fault for their failures in intelligence gathering and intelligence processing.

All a game isn't it "I'm all right jack screw the rest" thousands of squaddies and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civvies toasted .... gotta love them politicians

 

[Federal Farmer]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.

Lack of humint on the ground in Iraq. The blame for that lies squarely with Saddam himself. The UN forces that were in place following the Gulf War were doing the best they could to find a needle in a stack of needles, but with Saddam playing "whack-a-mole" with them every time they turned around, it's his own damned fault. All the idiot had to do was comply with the terms of his surrender, and we'd have been out of there years ago, and he'd still be alive and running Iraq.

I can still recall the moment I KNEW that we were going to have to send troops back into Iraq. When I saw the video of the UN inspectors who had turning up at one of his "Presidential palaces" to conduct a search, and the guards refused to allow them in through the front gate, while a convoy of trucks was being spirited out the back gate, and the guards refused to allow them to leave to go to the back gate to inspect the convoy, I turned to my wife and told her "well, that's it, now we're going to have to send the troops in to take Saddam out".

Bunz,

You're still holding on to the myth of "an exit strategy", but you've failed to consider that, in war, there has NEVER been an "exit strategy", by any country, other than victory. Too few troops? By whose measure? When the vast majority of commanders on the ground are telling the Chain of Command that they have enough troops for their mission, who is to say differently? When the mission changed after it became apparent that they Iraqi's weren't going to get their stuff in one bag as quickly as expected, and when it became apparent that the fight against the insurgency wasn't going as well as expected, they asked for more troops, and they got them. The other issue that we've faced in Iraq that is different than in any other war we've fought in recent memory is the number of non-Iraqi insurgents that have been pouring across the border into Iraq.

The fact is that the vast majority of insurgents that we've been fighting for the past 3 years aren't even Iraqis at all, so put that into a historical perspective for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if, following WWII, the Soviets had been sending "insurgents" into West Germany to mess with us?

 

[The Scotsman]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.

Well you are lucky Farmer because our politicians did lie to us. I find that odd though as you yourself cited earlier that the UK Government produced a Dossier put forward at Parliament and to the UK people upon which they based their argument to go to war. One would have assumed since Bush and Blair and the joint intelligence communities worked so closely together any such lie, error or "misinterpretation" would have been cleared prior to publication as the consequences would influence both the UK/US population!

One of the central tenents, for example, was a claim made in that Dossier about WMD and the capabilities of the Iraqis......

It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Excerpt from Tony Blairs speech to Parliament

This claim is supposed to have been asserted by the Intelligence Service MI6 via the Joint Intelligence Committee......

It became clear that Scarlett had worked closely with Alastair Campbell, then the Prime Minister's Director of Communications and Strategy, on the controversial dossier, with Campbell making drafting suggestions which the inquiry found may have "subconsciously influenced" Scarlett and the JIC. This influence may have had deleterious effects on the quality of the assessments presented in the dossier. For instance, the Intelligence and Security Committee made several criticisms in their report "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction — Intelligence and Assessments":

(Hutton Enquiry)

And finally a quote from Sir John McLeod Scarlett, KCMG, OBE who was head of the British Secret Intelligence Service and Chairman of the JIC at the time.

"As the 45 minutes claim was new to its readers, the context of the intelligence and any assessment needed to be explained. The fact that it was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions and their movement on the battlefield, not to any other form of chemical or biological attack, should have been highlighted in the dossier. The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning. This was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue."

The UK and US intelligence communities collaborated on the production of that document and indeed was used in whole or in part by President Bush as part of his arguments to the US people.

If lie is too strong a word try deception instead!

 

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Scotsman,

Again, I think we're coming at this from different angles, which is probably where the disconnect is coming in. As per the Iraqi UAV program, it is a known fact that before, during and after the Gulf War, Saddam did attempt to develop a RPV/UAV program, using both Mig-21's and L-29's. The Mig-21 program, by Iraqi admission was originally intended to to be used as a delivery platform for WMD's. Following the failure of the Mig-21 program, and starting in 1995, the Iraqis attempted to modify their L-29's into RPV's, in complete violation of the terms of surrender following Desert Storm. The fact that nobody has been able to satisfactorily ascertain as to whether it was their intention to use the L-29's as a WMD delivery platform or not is immaterial, as Saddam had already demonstrated a desire to develop an RPV/UAV for that purpose in the Mig-21 program.

Combined will all of the egregious examples of Saddam refusing to comply with UN mandates, his numerous violations of the terms of his surrender, including throwing the UN inspectors out of the country, repeatedly, his blatant support for, and financing of, terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, is it any wonder that it wasn't that much of a stretch for both your, and my countries intelligence communities to believe almost anything that came down the pike, especially when it concerns WMD's? After all, he did have a provable history of using them, not only on his enemies in the Iran/Iraq war, but on his own people! Also, the Duelfer report verifies that Saddam was efforting the revival of his WMD program, as well as working, albeit slowly, towards reconstituting his nuclear programs, primarily with a focus on tactical ballistic missiles.

It's also quite possible that I'm the one with blinders on, having served in the military, and having dealt with "intelligence" failures before. The one thing that, and I believe I've stated this before, we knew was the about half of the intel we got was going to be flat out wrong, or outdated, so we constantly factored in for that. Also, knowing this, we automatically allowed for a "worst case scenario", preferring to believe the worst and not have it come to pass, rather than choosing to plan for the best, and get killed when the worst came to pass. To say that we "erred on the side of caution" is an understatement of BIBLICAL proportions, and given the history of Saddam, I believe that this is what happened in both of our governments. While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

 

[The Scotsman]

It's also quite possible that I'm the one with blinders on, having served in the military, and having dealt with "intelligence" failures before. The one thing that, and I believe I've stated this before, we knew was the about half of the intel we got was going to be flat out wrong, or outdated, so we constantly factored in for that. Also, knowing this, we automatically allowed for a "worst case scenario", preferring to believe the worst and not have it come to pass, rather than choosing to plan for the best, and get killed when the worst came to pass. To say that we "erred on the side of caution" is an understatement of BIBLICAL proportions, and given the history of Saddam, I believe that this is what happened in both of our governments. While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

Hi Fed - I did my bit for Queen and Country too - and its not being blinkered mate its your belief and you've got to be respected for that otherwise you start questioning your motives and actions and man when you do that it sucks!! Theres so much that's wrong with this conflict its beyond belief.

Let's let history judge the rights and wrongs of our illustrious leaders and either damn them or laud them.

Oh yeah....military intelligence... the original oxymoron!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Hi Scotsman,
While it's regrettable to have to say "oops, we messed up" for invading Iraq based on faulty information, it's a lot less costly, at least in American and British lives, to have to do that than to wake up one morning and have WMD's going off all over both or our countries and have to be discussing "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT" while tens of millions are dead and dying.

Its also Regrettable to say that oops the evidence suggested we where wrong, and we rushed in anyway, the situation spun out of control, and now tens of millions are dead because of it. Our misstake of Iraq, may very well be a reason Iran gets the bomb ( if they in fact are trying to get one, and I think that is a reasonable view, but not a given) It could aslo be that Sr. Al Queda leadship is able to the the Distraction, or new recriuits and contacts to lunch its next Major attack. So while the idea of better safe the sorry sounds good, sometimes it is in fact the reason we are not safe and end up sorry. The Situation as it stood at the start of the war was UN Inspecters back in Iraq, most of the North and South parts of Iraq under UN protection from the air, and no clear or even what I would have called actionable intel that was at least given publicly to this point, to justify such actions.

Also it seems that they did not even factor in Regional power shifts and issue , odd given that claimed Iraq was going to change the middle east into some Democracy or some bull. Democracy is nice. but its for when the people call for it, not for when we tell them they want it. Many in the middle east may not like there governments, but that does not mean they want what we have, or what a few who came to us wanted. That said anyone who knew half a thing about the middle east knew Iran was going to have fingerprints all over Iraq , gaining power, and in a worst case Scenario that I believed at least plausible though not likely, actualy moving its troops in to the South or Iraq, taking its oil Fields and "saving is Shia brothers" from the US and Saddam.
This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park....To me the retoric of that suggested that they did not realy think he would US WMD, or where just woefuly ignorant ..or the combo of them. Fact is how it is going now, is far better then what I had in mind as a worse case going in....bu far from the picture they tried to paint for the American Public.


I know I had a point in there someplace, I hope I actuly hit it, as I forget what it was going to be lol

 

[Federal Farmer]

Its also Regrettable to say that oops the evidence suggested we where wrong, and we rushed in anyway, the situation spun out of control, and now tens of millions are dead because of it.

I think you need to recheck your figures. Even the most Liberal estimates out there, and believe me when I say Liberal, because they pulled those numbers right out of their fourth point of contact, is just over 1 million. The Lancet survey back in June of '06 listed just over 650,000 "excessive deaths" due to the war, and even that survey has been widely disputed. The low ball number is from the Iraqi Health Ministry, and it listed just over 400,000 "excessive" deaths due to the war.

Our misstake of Iraq, may very well be a reason Iran gets the bomb ( if they in fact are trying to get one, and I think that is a reasonable view, but not a given)

Iran has been trying to acquire a nuclear capability since the days of the Shah, it's nothing new. Just about everybody wants membership in the "nuclear club" while the original members are working as hard as they can to shut the damned thing down! Frankly, IMNSHO, in this day and age, anybody wanting membership in the "nuclear club" is suffering from a major case of "penis envy".

It could aslo be that Sr. Al Queda leadship is able to the the Distraction, or new recriuits and contacts to lunch its next Major attack.

"Lunch" it's next major attack? What, are they going to hit us with Happy Meals? Sorry, couldn't help it. Anyway, Al Qaeda is going to do what Al Qaeda wants to do as long as they can do it, and maintain "popular support", just like Baader Meinhoff and all of the other terrorist groups did in Germany, and around the world, in the 60's and 70's. That's what they do, and Europe paid the price for ignoring them in the hopes that they'd just go away. Some things you have to deal with, NOW, or it'll be far more costly in the long run.

So while the idea of better safe the sorry sounds good, sometimes it is in fact the reason we are not safe and end up sorry.

Nobody with at least 3 active brain cells can argue that point, but that's the rub isn't it. Do you DO something and hope you're right, or do you do NOTHING and hope you're right. It depends on what the perceived consequences of each of those possibilities is, and in the case of Saddam, and to paraphrase Dennis Miller, he and his sons were just unlucky enough to draw the a$$hole ticket in the Wonka drawing. Like I said before, too bad, so sad, it sucks to be them.

The Situation as it stood at the start of the war was UN Inspecters back in Iraq, most of the North and South parts of Iraq under UN protection from the air, and no clear or even what I would have called actionable intel that was at least given publicly to this point, to justify such actions.

OK, let's look at that for a moment. You're saying that there was no actionable intel, but you're saying that in hindsight, and no insult intended here, and you're saying it with, from what I've gathered, absolutely no formal training in intel analysis. Again, maybe that's where I have the blinders on, but I was trained to look at raw intel and to have to make a decision on how to use it, and from the perspective of that training, and from looking at Saddams history, I have no doubt that I'd have made the same decision the President did, regrettable as hindsight has now proven it to be.

Also it seems that they did not even factor in Regional power shifts and issue , odd given that claimed Iraq was going to change the middle east into some Democracy or some bull.

Why would they? The mission was based on, admittedly flawed intel, that Saddam was in possession of, and prepared to use, WMD's! When you're facing the potential of tens, if not hundreds of millions of deaths, you move, and you move NOW, and you'll sort out the rest of it IF you live long enough. As far as how Iraqs government will eventually turn out, that's anybodies guess, and only time will tell. Truth be told, nobody in Europe gave us more than 5 years before they predicted that we'd be begging the King to let us "come back home".

Democracy is nice. but its for when the people call for it, not for when we tell them they want it. Many in the middle east may not like there governments, but that does not mean they want what we have, or what a few who came to us wanted. That said anyone who knew half a thing about the middle east knew Iran was going to have fingerprints all over Iraq , gaining power, and in a worst case Scenario that I believed at least plausible though not likely, actualy moving its troops in to the South or Iraq, taking its oil Fields and "saving is Shia brothers" from the US and Saddam.

Which is why we're still there, to make sure that Iran, or anyone else, doesn't do that. Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, all of them, Shia, Sunni, and Kurd alike, and we are currently there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. Any time they want us to leave, all they have to do is tell us to go, and we're out of there. So far, that has yet to occur, and not for a lack of trying on the part of some of their newly elected representatives.

This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park....To me the retoric of that suggested that they did not realy think he would US WMD, or where just woefuly ignorant ..or the combo of them. Fact is how it is going now, is far better then what I had in mind as a worse case going in....bu far from the picture they tried to paint for the American Public.

I'm not sure where this whole notion of "a walk in the park" came from, as I seem to recall the debate on The Hill and horror predictions of tens of thousands of dead US Servicemen from WMD attacks. While there was the hope that the Iraqi people themselves would welcome us, and if you'll recall the initial reaction, they did, I seriously doubt that anyone in a position of authority was counting on a "cake walk" invasion.

I know I had a point in there someplace, I hope I actuly hit it, as I forget what it was going to be lol

I guess you did, and I hope that I addressed it.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Hi Fed - I did my bit for Queen and Country too - and its not being blinkered mate its your belief and you've got to be respected for that otherwise you start questioning your motives and actions and man when you do that it sucks!! Theres so much that's wrong with this conflict its beyond belief.

Let's let history judge the rights and wrongs of our illustrious leaders and either damn them or laud them.

Oh yeah....military intelligence... the original oxymoron!

Hi Scotsman.

From a cousin across the pond, and a fellow Vet, thank you for your service, I'll hoist one in your honor tonight!

You're right though, when guys like us start questioning things, it tends to get ugly, in a hurry.

As for the rest, I agree, lets allow history to be the judge, because we can sit here for the rest of our lives playing "what if", and never solve a sodding thing.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Scotsman,

As to all of the things that are AFU with this operation, you've a way with the understatement.

To my way of thinking, the biggest mistake we made was in not establishing the fact that we were the "big dog" in town right from the word go. The time to be "Mr. Nice Guy" is when things have settled down, but when the insurgents killed and hanged our guys from the bridge in Fallujah, I'd have leveled the entire damned city, reduced it to a smoking pile of rubble that resembled the landscape of the moon, and used it as a glaring example of why you don't want to poke the big doggy with the stick.

There was a saying back in my day about winning hearts and minds; When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds WILL follow.

 

[Bunz]

Bunz, Scotsman, there is not doubt in anyones mind that errors were made, both before, during, and after the invasion, but none of it gives any indication of an intentional effort by anyone in any position of authority to deceive the American people, ergo, there was no lie.

Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11
Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ
Saddam had an active WMD program
There were vast stockpiles of WMD
The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil
I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.

Lack of humint on the ground in Iraq. The blame for that lies squarely with Saddam himself. The UN forces that were in place following the Gulf War were doing the best they could to find a needle in a stack of needles, but with Saddam playing "whack-a-mole" with them every time they turned around, it's his own damned fault.

Let me get something straight here, the blame for poor intel on the part of the Americans is Saddams fault. I can understand that. Do you expect him to sit idly with spies in his midst? Certainly not. He would do the same thing any other government would do in such a situation. Deal with them quickly and forcefully. In the book I am reading, it mentions the lack of intel in Iraq is part of what you mention in the sense they were afraid of working with the US because of Saddam. But also it mentions how the US failed to protect those assets and foster those relationships. The intelligence failure is based squarely on the intel sources, gatherers, interpretation folks and then ultimately the American policy makers.

All the idiot had to do was comply with the terms of his surrender, and we'd have been out of there years ago, and he'd still be alive and running Iraq.

See this is where I disagree. There is no question the biggest criticism of the Bush 41 administration was in dealing with Iraq when its Army was forced out of Kuwait. Bush 43 was going to make any case to "finish the job". I knew we would be back in Iraq the moment GWB was sworn in.

You're still holding on to the myth of "an exit strategy", but you've failed to consider that, in war, there has NEVER been an "exit strategy", by any country, other than victory.

Exit strategy? Victory?
Your still thinking that there is a US military solution to this fiasco. Saddam is gone, democracy is there, Iraqi security forces trained. What else do you want from the troops? We have no business propping up a rightfully elected democratic government, especially from thier own people. If it were up to me, I say we have 6 or so large permanent bases in iraq, and American troops end thier combat patrols, leaving that to the Iraqis. Been saying it for months.

Too few troops? By whose measure? When the vast majority of commanders on the ground are telling the Chain of Command that they have enough troops for their mission, who is to say differently?

Cheney said in 91 while SecDef that the 400,000 or so troops wasnt enough then to go to Baghdad. Everyone except for the policy makers(specifically Rummy) and Franks said that 130K wasnt enough. They like all other dissenters in the run up to the war, were either, removed, minimized, and discredited through personal attacks.

When the mission changed after it became apparent that they Iraqi's weren't going to get their stuff in one bag as quickly as expected, and when it became apparent that the fight against the insurgency wasn't going as well as expected, they asked for more troops, and they got them.

I assume you are referring to the surge. They got more troops, not many more, but some more. The issue is that tomorrow, or the next day, or next month is the situation can spiral out of hand. Then we need another surge, and so on, where does it end? The American military, especially the Army cannot continue with the deployment schedule it has kept indefinatly.

The other issue that we've faced in Iraq that is different than in any other war we've fought in recent memory is the number of non-Iraqi insurgents that have been pouring across the border into Iraq.

Oh like our buddies the Sauds? Or the Syrians? Or how about our real arch enemy in the region, Iran. Who has been emboldened by the situation in Iraq, we turned them from a nusance, into a full blown regional power. Thanks, Mr President.

The fact is that the vast majority of insurgents that we've been fighting for the past 3 years aren't even Iraqis at all, so put that into a historical perspective for a moment and ask yourself what would have happened if, following WWII, the Soviets had been sending "insurgents" into West Germany to mess with us?

I am going to call BS on your assertion that the vast majority of the insurgents have been foreign. Some yes, but certainly not the vast majority. Unless of course you have a percentage breakdown. Then please do post it for all to read.
Instead of using that example, lets look at the Soviets and Chinese, and the situations in Korea and Vietnam. Where most of the arms came from there and poorly disguised as such. Plus considerable troops in Korea and at least some in Vietnam.

 

[Libsmasher]

Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11
Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ
Saddam had an active WMD program
There were vast stockpiles of WMD
The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil
I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.

This mostly a recital of endlessly-repeated appeaser mythology. Provide quotes from credible sources.

 

[Bunz]

This mostly a recital of endlessly-repeated appeaser mythology. Provide quotes from credible sources.

From Bush himself...
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

 

[The Scotsman]

This situation never really became likely as Iraq fell so fast and of course no WND was used to slow and Sap the willpower of the US quickly enough where it may be willing to pull out. In this regard has it actuly happened, Bush had already set the seeds for a massive backlash in the US with its talk that made it sound like a walk in the park....

............. yes you did have a point and its a good one!! Unfortunately a lot of advisors around Bush should have advised him to engage his brain before speaking!

 

[Federal Farmer]

Some of the more glaring statements and policies and beliefs of the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, that were deceptive, mis-leading, inaccurate or flat our lies include...
Saddam had something to do with 9-11

He did, and I've already posted information that proves this.

Sadddam/Iraq had operational ties to AlQ

He did

Saddam had an active WMD program

He did. Read the Duelfer Report, it's all in there.

There were vast stockpiles of WMD

He did, they are now in Syria and Lebanon.

The military efforts will be paid for by Iraqi oil

They are.

According to Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, since 2003, $50.6 billion spent on reconstruction projects has come from Iraq itself, while the U.S. has spent $47.5 billion. "In short, we used more of their money for reconstruction than ours," Cordesman says. LINK

I could go on, but you see where I am going with this.

Yup, right off the deep end.

Let me get something straight here, the blame for poor intel on the part of the Americans is Saddams fault. I can understand that. Do you expect him to sit idly with spies in his midst? <snip>

First you say it was Saddams fault, and then you say it was our fault, which is it?

See this is where I disagree. There is no question the biggest criticism of the Bush 41 administration was in dealing with Iraq when its Army was forced out of Kuwait. Bush 43 was going to make any case to "finish the job". I knew we would be back in Iraq the moment GWB was sworn in.

As I said, I knew it when I saw the video of trucks going out the back gate of one of Saddams palaces while the UN Inpectors were being detained at the front gate. You were a little slow on the uptake, but with you not having served, that much is understandable. What I can't understand is your allowing your antipathy for President Bush (obviously since before he was elected) so color your judgement that you'd automatically assume that he would do what you accuse him of, regardless of the complete lack of evidence to support your assertions.

Exit strategy? Victory?
Your still thinking that there is a US military solution to this fiasco. Saddam is gone, democracy is there, Iraqi security forces trained. What else do you want from the troops? We have no business propping up a rightfully elected democratic government, especially from thier own people. If it were up to me, I say we have 6 or so large permanent bases in iraq, and American troops end thier combat patrols, leaving that to the Iraqis. Been saying it for months.

And I've been trying to tell you that you don't understand the situation on the ground over there. What good is it for us to have bases over there if we're not going to patrol? What good is it for us to remain there at all if we're going to just sit by and allow FOREIGN insurgents (that's the part you keep overlooking, the insurgents are, for the most part, NOT Iraqis) overthrow the legally constituted government of Iraq?

Cheney said in 91 while SecDef that the 400,000 or so troops wasnt enough then to go to Baghdad. Everyone except for the policy makers(specifically Rummy) and Franks said that 130K wasnt enough. They like all other dissenters in the run up to the war, were either, removed, minimized, and discredited through personal attacks.

Well, apparantly 130K WERE enough, as the entire nation of Iraq folded like a cheap suit in just 20 days! Now granted, it wasn't the 100 hours of Desert Storm, but then all we were doing was running them out of Kuwait, this time we were taking them down, HARD.

I assume you are referring to the surge. They got more troops, not many more, but some more. The issue is that tomorrow, or the next day, or next month is the situation can spiral out of hand. Then we need another surge, and so on, where does it end? The American military, especially the Army cannot continue with the deployment schedule it has kept indefinatly.

It's apparant that you haven't been watching much news lately. The fact is that insurgent activity is at it's lowest level since August of 2003 (it seems they finally figured out that NOBODY LIKES THEM!).

Oh like our buddies the Sauds? Or the Syrians? Or how about our real arch enemy in the region, Iran. Who has been emboldened by the situation in Iraq, we turned them from a nusance, into a full blown regional power. Thanks, Mr President.

OK, now THAT was just plain silly.

I am going to call BS on your assertion that the vast majority of the insurgents have been foreign. Some yes, but certainly not the vast majority. Unless of course you have a percentage breakdown. Then please do post it for all to read.
Instead of using that example, lets look at the Soviets and Chinese, and the situations in Korea and Vietnam. Where most of the arms came from there and poorly disguised as such. Plus considerable troops in Korea and at least some in Vietnam.

You can "call" whatever you want, it won't be any more accurate than anything else you've had to say on the subject thus far. My information as to the nationalities of "foreign fighters" comes from those who have served in Iraq, recently, where they've been tracking them coming in from across the border. Now, whether they been born in Iraq or not, and then left, and were coming back after receiving training and weapons from outside the country (Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia) doesn't matter, they were killed CROSSING THE BORDER with weapons in their hands, hence, they were "foreign fighters".

 

[Federal Farmer]

From Bush himself...
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." - President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"I think they're both equally important, and they're both dangerous. And as I said in my speech in Cincinnati, we will fight if need be the war on terror on two fronts. We've got plenty of capacity to do so. And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The war on terror, Iraq is a part on the war on terror. And he must disarm." - President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002) - Whitehouse.gov

And you have yet to provide evidence that ANY of that is in any way "deceptive" or is a "lie".