Posted on 09/16/2004 11:50:30 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Madrid, Spain, Sep. 15 (UPI) --
Off the record conversations with intelligence chiefs in five major European countries -- each with multiple assets in Iraq -- showed remarkable agreement on these points:
-- The neo-con objectives for restructuring Iraq into a functioning model democracy were a bridge too far. They were never realistic.
[snip] -- The insurgency has mushroomed from 5,000 in the months following the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime to an estimated 20,000 today, which is still growing. Insurgents are targeting green Iraqi units and volunteers for training and some have already defected to the rebels.
[snip] -- To cope with the insurgency, the United States requires 10 times the rebel strength -- or some 200,000 as a bare minimum. Short of that number, the insurgency will continue to gain momentum. The multiple is based on the British experience in Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century as well as France's civil war in Algeria (1954-62), when nationalist guerrillas were defeated militarily, but won the war diplomatically. France deployed half a million men to defeat the fellaghas in Algeria.
-- The U.S. occupation has lost control of large swathes of Iraq where the insurgency operates with virtual impunity. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Yes. Intelligence agencies are in perpetual CYA mode.
If an operation is a success, no one will worry who gave bad advice. If it fails, then intel agencies want to say, "We warned you."
They spent years telling McClellan he didn't have enough troops to take on Lee. Grant didn't care.
They told us the Russians were invincible, and their jets better than ours. They were wrong.
They told us we would lose tens of thousands in GW1. They were wrong.
They told us Baghdad would fight street by street. They were wrong.
Heck, they told us about the WMDs - and were wrong.
Like the NY Times, intel weenies - particularly european intel weenies - are useful for knowing what to do. Read their advice carefully, and do the opposite.
Well, isn't McCain one of the people saying we need more troops in Iraq?
I rest my case.
And you still can't respond to this, can you?
I guess you're okay with the fact that Iraq was training Al Qaeda. That's what those reports said. Try and get your facts straight before you post crap.
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report said:
1. 78 different reports from different sources provided info that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence officers for terrorist attacks against America.
2. Iraq provided al Qaeda with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training.
3. Direct meetings between senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives took place. An Iraqi Fedayeen officer was present during at least on pre 9/11 planning meeting.
4. The truth about yellowcake uranium was the exact opposite of what Joe Wilson said it was. Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium. In fact, Wilson's report to the CIA supported this fact, despite what he said publicly.
5. Putin said that Russian intelligence warned Washington several times in the days immediately following 9/11 that Hussein was planning to attack the US.
If we had attacked Pakistan, the leftists would be yelling that we were ignoring Iraq.
See all the Democrat's remarks about Iraq and Saddam and WMD made since Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.
It is inconceivable that Saddam would be rounding up or killing Al Qaeda terrorists. Pakistan is doing that.
Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11. 9-11 is the whole reason -- the proximate cause for -- the ramped-up WOT. There are 3000 lives to be avenged. Our first priority, after 9-11, should have been - and should be - to hunt down the culprits. They were in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. Our prime directive should have been (and initially, it WAS) to get Osama. Somehow the focus got shifted and distracted.
You are thinking at the tactical level instead of strategic. Kill Osama and another will take his place. Create a democracy - a very difficult goal, I agree - in the arab middle east, and you change the entire landscape of terrorism.
We'll chase Osama until he is caught or he dies of natural causes. The tactical continues, while we try for the strategic.
A side benefit of Iraq is drawing the terrorists into a killing field of our own making. I prefer for our military (including my daughter in Iraq and my son heading that way in a couple of months) deal with them there rather than giving them the time to come to our schools.
Somehow our focus got shifted?
What planet are you on?
Have you not read a word from the Senate Intelligence Commitee Reports or the 9/11 Commission?
Both said that Iraq was TRAINING AL QAEDA.
BOTH SAID THAT A HIGH RANKING IRAQI FEDAYEEN MEMBER WAS AT A PRE PLANNING 9/11 MEETING.
It is useless arguing with someone whose reading comprehension is so low.
AQ wasn't in Iraq?
Is your name really Kerry? How dumb are you?
Can you not READ???
I thought by now that old DNC lie had been put to bed by the Intel Committee Report and the 9/11 Commission Report.
Both said that Iraq was training AQ in chemical, biological and nuclear attacks.
But that's obviously beyond your ability to grasp. And you would prefer to leave Saddam in power to continue to TRAIN OUR ENEMY!!!!!!!!!!
Not only that, Tommy Franks was told by Jordna and Egypt Iraq had WMDs.
Saddam was sure ACTING like he had `em.
I hate it when people do this.
Even if the 10 times the strength ratio were valid, "strength" does not necessarily equal raw numbers. Just to illustrate the very basic point, does it take more strength to suppress an insurgency armed with fully modern U.S. equipment, or guys armed with bows and swords?
In determining "strength", you've got to consider all factors, firepower, mobility, intelligence, armor/air assets, etc. Saying "they have 20k, so we must have 200k" is overly simplistic and inaccurate. The real number may be less or more, but the process they used to determine that number is flawed.
"Although a number of prominent Catholics are neo-conservatives, the movement remains predominantly Jewish, and the monthly journal that really defined neo-conservatism over the past 35 years, Commentary, is published by the American Jewish Committee. At the same time, however, neo-conservative attitudes have reflected a minority position within the US Jewish community as most Jews remain distinctly liberal in their political and foreign policy views.."
One defect of logic could be: A non sequitur (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises as described in the following Web Site-- www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
Or, perhaps, it is the "straw man" argument:The 'Straw Man Argument' is one which is untenable because of certain dishonest or erroneous assumptions embedded within them. When an irrelevant thesis is inaccurately claimed to be someone's position, it is said to be a 'Straw Man' argument, meaning, it will not stand. When done deliberately, this fallacy of presumption is both unethical and unfair. A good discussion of this argumentative fallacy can be found here: mountainretreat.org/glossary.html
Look man, we can take control of any part of the country and time we want to. But we choose not to attack certain pockets of resistance for political reasons: we don't want to take casualties before the election and we don't want to be too tough on the Iraqis and turn them against us at a time when the vast majority of them respect and admire us. You and Sam are getting too negative because of the endless drone of unbalanced negative news reports by the press. Let's see what happens in November and December and then revisit these issues.
"and time we want to", should have been:
any time we want to.
That's not what I pick up, even from the paragraph that you cite - - which begins by pointing out that a number of Catholics are neo-cons. It doesn't say that this means they're "jewish sympathizers" -- in fact it goes on to say that most Jews are NOT neocons. !
What part of the above quote is confusing or you don't understand? Look in any RAT editorial or punditry on the Iraq war and you are bound to find neo-con. The RATS hate the idea that Israel has persevered and succeeded in the Mideast with our help. Case in point--since Saddam is gone, the suicide bombers in Israel have receded in importance. Again, like the US in Iraq the Israelis were supposed to either cave in or lose.
Bet, one way or the other, we are not going to lose and neither are the Israelis.
One of the last times I saw the word used -- about three weeks ago, if memory serves -- it was by Andrew Sullivan, who said "as a neoconservative, I ... " He isn't Jewish, I don't think.
good response
"Andrew Sullivan was born in August 1963 in a small town in Southern England, South Godstone, and grew up in a neighboring town, East Grinstead, in West Sussex. He went to Reigate Grammar School, and, from there, to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he took a First in Modern History and Modern Languages. He was also President of the Oxford Union in his Second Year at college, and spent his summer vacations as an actor in the National Youth Theatre of Great Britain. (Sullivan's Web Site)
"Andrew Sullivan is a popular and influential conservative writer. He's also gay, which is a curious fact because it's long been obvious that the Republican Party has no place for gays and gay rights. That's probably part of the reason why Sullivan has decided that Kerry not only should be president, but does in fact represent conservative values even more than Bush does. [This quote is from the atheism Web Site at http://atheism.about.com/b/a/101762.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.