Replies

” The uranium operation caused us, as usual, to rent trucks from the surrounding tribes with comprehensive war-loss insurance (meaning if a truck got blown up then the owner took the loss).”

This makes no sense to me and it one of those odd sentences that frankly calls the premise and thus the conclusion of the article into question. Unless I am completely misunderstanding it.

If the (Iraqi) owner of a truck or trailer takes the loss (of a destroyed truck/trailer) there IS NO insurance. So...(the article says) the owners of the trucks sought to “look out for”, or even “defend against” Al Queda attacks.....? Really? You mean, if elements of Al Queda found an Iraqi helping US forces with his truck(s) they wouldn’t blow his brains out? So...he’d do that for some money, right? And some tribal dude is going to venture away from his ‘hood and keep watch over his truck?

And further...if WMDs were found, and clearly some were and some weren’t, why not spread disinformation as to WHERE they were found and thus use them as potential “bait” to lure terrorists interesting in grabbing them from a false location? Wouldn’t *you* do that if you found something you didn’t want to fall into the hands of people you were otherwise eagerly trying to kill?

Sorry, smells funny.

” The uranium operation caused us, as usual, to rent trucks from the surrounding tribes with comprehensive war-loss insurance (meaning if a truck got blown up then the owner took the loss).”

This makes no sense to me and it one of those odd sentences that frankly calls the premise and thus the conclusion of the article into question. Unless I am completely misunderstanding it.

If the (Iraqi) owner of a truck or trailer takes the loss (of a destroyed truck/trailer) there IS NO insurance. So...(the article says) the owners of the trucks sought to “look out for”, or even “defend against” Al Queda attacks.....? Really? You mean, if elements of Al Queda found an Iraqi helping US forces with his truck(s) they wouldn’t blow his brains out? So...he’d do that for some money, right? And some tribal dude is going to venture away from his ‘hood and keep watch over his truck?

You have to read it in context with the first sentence of the next paragraph:

This in turn caused the tribes to look outwards on the convoy movements to protect their expensive tractor trailers instead of inwards—searching for a chance to attack.

These tribes he is talking about control their territories. No one comes into their areas and carries out attacks without their help. So, you put the tribes on the hook for any damage that occurs to their trucks and -- voila -- magically, no one tips off the bad guys about these convoys, and no terrorists come blow them up.

These tribes know who Al Quaeda is and they know what it is up to, and they know it has money. If the tribe rents a truck to the US Army and gets a big insurance policy on it as part of the deal, then it can just tip off AQ, get a pay-day from them, and then collect the insurance money after AQ attacks.

Even in terrorism: follow the money.

Sorry, smells funny.

....actually stinks to high heaven. The secrecy was likely more due to the source of all the WMD being Carlisle Group buddies of GHWB and all his CIA friends. CIA working for their own benefit and profit since 1950....

ymmv

So...(the article says) the owners of the trucks sought to “look out for”, or even “defend against” Al Queda attacks.....? Really? You mean, if elements of Al Queda found an Iraqi helping US forces with his truck(s) they wouldn’t blow his brains out?

The 2 parts of your statement are contradictory. The first is correct and it doesn't "mean" the 2nd.

Simply put...the incentive to keep tight lips and tight watch over one's own truck was great. And it seems to have worked.