Iraq by the Numbers - or how to be dumb.
 

"Mission Accomplished" was a mistake for longer than the US was in World War II. George Jr even admits that on 10 Jan 2007. Suddenly a president gets smart? Bull. "Mission Accomplished" must be ongoing after 2008 - George Jr's legacy then is protected while the death rate of American troops increases. Generals say dead soldiers per month will be higher in 2007 to accomplish this George Jr plan.

Intelligent people, instead, do the numbers. New York City - a population of 8 million - has a police force of 37,000. That's one cop for every 220 people in a town that is peaceful. Baghdad population is 7 million. That means 32,000 soldiers if the city was peaceful. But Baghdad is not peaceful. Military numbers are well defined. 40,000 soldiers for every one million people. That means 280,000 soldiers just for Baghdad. Look at that number: 280K required just for Baghdad. No wonder no General wanted Central Command - so they had to find an Admiral.

George Jr will *surge* a solution by putting 30,000 soldiers in Baghdad. He does this because even in the Cellar, nobody did the numbers. The numbers are that damning.

More numbers. Military experts say that we should see results in 18 month to two years from now. What is more important? American lives? Wealth of the nation? The troops? NO. Legacy of George Jr is only important.

Even New York City has better protection - a city not at war has more police!

Ok. Iraqi army that has been in training since 2004 and that cannot field a single independent battalion 3 years later will miraculously take control of 'liberated' regions? He believes you are that stupid; will not do simple arithmetic. Iraq is in civil war. Ethnic cleansing is ongoing. The Iraqi army is so ethnically structured that even every other battalion cannot be deployed outside their home town areas. Even the Iraqi army does not stop the violence.

An aggressive and only possible solution to Iraq is the Iraq Study Group. Problems in Iraq are numerous; more than street security. But again George Jr knows you are that dumb. Where does George Jr even discuss those other 'Iraq Study Group' defined problems? He does not. He must keep you ignorant and speechless.

George Jr knows the dumb do not do numbers. 40,000 soldiers per one million people means Baghdad needs 280,000 soldiers. But a trivial 30,000 means "Mission Accomplished" keeps going - to be lost by another president.

Those numbers are damning. Those numbers say the war will not be lost by the scumbag president - who knows you are so dumb as to not do those numbers. Do you support that mental midget by ignoring the numbers? Or do you talk about those numbers every day?

Simple. George Jr knows you will be dumb: ignore those numbers. Legacy of George Jr is more important.

People will assume that it is enough. If they did bring 300,000 troops the entire country would be outraged and say that they overkilling the situation.

To keep it fair, did you count the Iraqi police numbers tw?

Though I support you both on the stance you take against Bush & the war in Iraq, your figures reflect only the American excperience. Most European cities do with far less than that civilian to police ratio, and your assumptions re the army to populace ratio is also flawed in that it is based on forcible subjugation of a hostile population (though, tbh, the US tactics are indeed creating a hostile population) rather than the force and intelligence needed to weed out the hostile portions of the population.

40,000 soldiers per one million people are military numbers for Baghdad. That is what the military says was necessary. That was also numbers necessary in Bosnia. 40,000 soldiers per one million population are what the military said was necessary when George Jr (acutally Rumsfeld) refused to provide sufficient troops.

Provide too few troops and of course it will take 18 to 24 months to see results. Objective? Don't lose "Mission Accomplished" under George Jr's watch - which is exactly what Nixon also did.

"That is what the military says was necessary"


to do what?

I'm not sure the iraqi police can be counted, piercehawkeye45, cause we have no way to know (and therefore quantify) which are loyal cops and which are more loyal to their 'side' in the civil wa... er, i mean, sectarian violence.

To cause the destruction of America. What do you think they were saying? Come on Jay.
Don't act dumb like George Jr needs all Americans to be. Why do you think the military says they need and needed 40,000 soldiers per one million people in Iraq? So they can enrich Halliburton?

sorry, the irony escapes me.......

TW, I agree with your overall stance though your words do confuse me from time to time.

What irony? Those simple numbers - arithmetic - are ironic? Ballpark numbers were even provided last Aug 2006 in the Holbrook / Kristol interview on Charlie Rose at Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q.

George Jr has Americans believe 30,000 troops in a surge will do what the military says needs hundreds of thousands. Even the NYC police department puts more armed officiers on the streets.

The mental midget hopes each Americans is so dumb to not do simple arithmetic. George Jr's legacy is at stake.

Tw's annoyingly right again, a troop surge IS what is needed to win, but not what Bush is sending. The solution is either outrage the country further, send hundreds of thousands, and piss EVERYONE off, or pull out and only piss a few off.

No adult should ever care what is and is not annoying. Only the facts are important. Facts are in those numbers. The president believes us to be so dumb as to not do the numbers. Even the New York City police force is about 37,000. But only 30,000 troops (in a city where even 1/3rd of the police are believed to be insurgents) will somehow bring security to Baghdad? It is an annoying reality. He does not care about American soldier’s lives. A statement of fact from the Generals. This strategy means even higher American fatalities. But since it will take 18 month to two years, then the legacy of a mental midget president is safe. He actually believes you are that dumb. Based upon responses, both here and on the streets; George Jr apparently is correct. Americans will not even do simple arithmetic.

How much contempt does the American public really have for the troops? He can waste soldier’s lives - and so many are silent? Who really is annoying? The one who lies to even kill American soldiers - or the one who has been identifying the mental midget, bluntly, for years?

I am appalled that a scumbag president thinks nothing of killing Americans soldiers only to protect his legacy.

No kidding. We're "surging" to what troop levels were a couple of years ago.

quick, tw, fix your spelling of appalled before UG sees! remember, bad spelling makes you a commie!

Uh, not to ruin your party or anything, because much of what you say has merit, but it is a very different world today than it was during the Nixon administration and every American will know instantly that this situation, for good or bad, lies with George W. and his legacy. Especially with people like you keeping it in our face everyday. You are not the only one tw. To your credit, there are many like you who constantly expound on your beliefs and rationals. You constantly put the information you have out there.

The Cellar is far from the "general public", yesman. I find the number of people that don't have a clue, astounding. And the number that know they don't know, and don't care, appalling.:(

You found the group that Rumsfeld didn't mention (but relied on)! The uncared known unknowns!

I think Jon Stewart summed this up the best.

"It's like, Bush has this big ol', BIG ol' pot of SHIT. And he looks at it and says... 'Needs a pinch of salt.'"

didn't say they were - more of a generalized statement than anything else - sorry if you took it as a negative, it wasn't meant to be.

Unfortunate, but true. This laissez faire attitude causes many problems or better put allows many to happen.

Naw, I didn't take it as a negative. I took it as a misplaced faith in the savy of the general public. :D

Tw's fundamental error is assuming the American population thinks as he does. But tw notwithstanding, what the American population really wants is to win the War on Terror, which is exactly the thing tw won't admit aloud that he doesn't want -- yet his desires bleed through all his posts on the subject.

You will note that the America-must-lose faction speaks of Iraq as some kind of separate war, rather than the real view of matters, which is that Iraq and Afghanistan are campaigns within the wider war.

The cut and run withdrawal means, in due course, coming back in there for a much larger and far more ruinous war, should the anti-Western fanatics not be discredited by defeat. This would be a strategy so poor as to amount to treason.

Tw's incapacity with written English makes him a dullard, not a communist, Ibram. His communist America delenda est views are quite independent of his bad English, though of course they don't help him do anything except maintain his fellational relationship with the shades of Lenin and Stalin. They certainly don't help him promulgate a strategy for winning that's an improvement over the "Republican Plan," which it looks as if the Democrats will try to take over, and then promply fumble. That's why I don't like the Democratic Party: they aren't in America's corner.

Former Republican President Richard M. Nixon was viewed by many as a domestic crook; but, was regarded as a foreign policy genius in some circles (he opened relations with China). In order to avoid another quagmire like Vietnam, he established 3 criteria that would have to be met before the US would again use military intervention abroad:

1.) The indigenous people must want our help.
2.) They must be willing to fight for themselves.
3.) They must be able to sustain our accomplishments after the US withdraws.

ALL THREE conditions would have to be met before the US would use military intervention to depose another government. Oh, the US could still go to war with another country; but, it would be to conquer nation (i.e. a people) - not just a government - (e.g. Japan during WWII; though, not necessarily using WMD).

This became doctrine and was actually taught in the military. Even when George Sr. blew the opportunity to invade Iraq (its invasion of Kuwait being the best rationale we ever had), he at least restricted our military action to containment of their military rather than trying to depose the government when he was unwilling to conquer their people at that time.

Jorge Dubya, OTOH, abandoned the lessons of Vietnam, for whatever reasons you wish to attribute his actions, and invaded Iraq to just depose the government when:

1.) The indigenous people wanted their government out, they didn't want the US in.
2.) They were willing to fight for themselves.
3.) They could not reasonably be expected to sustain our accomplishments due to sectarianism.

Now Jeorge Dubya, in order to correct a failed strategy, has decided to increase troop strength. He is NOT doing so to conquer a people; thus, right the wrong in his policy. He is doing so to conquer only a city (Baghdad). He expects the new government he has installed to conquer the people, the same people it derives its powers from, while maintaining some semblance of a democracy.

There is no reasonable expectation that Jorge Dubya has implemented anything more than a delaying tactic to get him through his final term. Americans think in terms of "the next 4 years." Middle Easterners think in terms of the next few decades or generations. Dubya is obsolete.

NoBoxes, so you are saying what? That what he did was wrong but for the right reason? He was doing it incorrectly & #3 being rectified to correct that? Or are we Americans all just too short sighted and selfish to care or have enough forethought? I'm dense I know, sorry.

is UG's viewpoint (that Iraq is part of the war on terror (wart?)) widespread in the US? If so, then I must congratulate dubya on the efficency of his propaganda machine.

And to noboxes & yesman, I've always surmised that he did to 'finish daddy's job' and thus get one up on him.

I've just decided that I don't like the name of the War on Terror. It's too open ended. The terrorists are people who don't like our government and lack the political power to fight us in any other way. In order to win the War on Terror, we would have to make everybody like us. We would have to enrich everyone to the extent that they have something to lose by opposing us. To ensure that we have allies, we would have to always take the higher moral ground. We would have to outlaw visceral horror films. I don't think we can do that.

We can't win these wars because they're ill-defined. Couldn't we just call it "Operation Destroy Al-Qaeda", then destroy Al-Qaeda, and be done with it?

And UG, they are two entirely separate wars. We went to war with Afghanistan to destroy the state regime which harbored Al-Qaeda. We went to war with Iraq because they had WMDs, or to spread democracy in the Middle East, or something or another. It's always been a little hazy why exactly we went to war with Iraq.

the problem with the war on terror is, like you said, that we have to make everybody like us. The problem comes when we try to do that with bombs and guns.

Nixon and Kissinger regarded Vietnam as a proxy war with China. Nixon was desperate to get out of Vietnam without a defeat on his legacy. Nixon saw his trip to China as separating China from Vietnam. But Nixon did not understand the historical animosity between Chinese and Vietnamese. Nixon was doing anything to get out of Vietnam - to save his legacy.

Nixon even negotiated a thorn that plagues us today. Nixon essentially negotiated away Taiwan. Taiwan remains an only serious reason why US and China may end up in military conflict - because of that Nixon blunder. But then Nixon was doing anything he could to save his legacy. The US did not have to go to Baghdad to remove Saddam. It simply required Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc to understand basic military science 101. What is the purpose of war? The settlement at a peace table. Where were those conditions? When Schwarzkopf asked Washington for those conditions (that should have been defined immediately after 1 Aug 1990), instead, Cheney, et al were too busy drinking champaign.

Schwarzkopf had to make up conditions for surrender ad hoc. But what is worse, Schwarzkopf was told to end the war before it was over - by those same fools in Washington. Schwarzkopf begged for just one more day to get the 101st Airborne in position. Those fools in Washington ignored Schwarzkopf. And they did not do their job: define conditions for surrender.

Well Saddam was left fully in power with American blessing. As the US Army watched from 5 miles away, Saddam may have massacred 20,000 Iraqis in Basra. Had these idiots done their job, then Saddam would have been removed by a unity of other religious groups. We let Saddam massacre his own people after we told them to rise up against him. Notice who that is directly traceable to.

Well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc hope their legacy did not last - so that you would ignore their failures in 1992. "Mission Accomplished" needed any excuse to fix their mistake. No, we did not have to go to Baghdad in 1992. Had Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc done their job, then Saddam would have been removed by Iraqis. They stopped Schwarzkopf before he was ready. They did not plan for the peace.

So what did those same fools not do in "Mission Accomplished"? Again, they made the exact same mistake. Again, they did not "plan for the peace". A Frontline documentary makes this woefully obvious:
The Lost Year

This is military science 101 stuff. Notice where failure keep arising every time. No planning for the peace. People who still don't understand military science 101 principles - planning for the peace.

The Iraq Study Group has a comprehensive plan for ending "Mission Accomplished". The fact that so much MUST be done demosntrated how "Stay the Course" or "Way forward" is clearly a lie from the same mental midget administration. They did not even plan for the peace - a military science 101 blunder.

tw, do you work in the department of redundancy department?

My personal opinion (others are welcome to disagree as it doesn't paint a pretty picture) is that George W. was saddled with a country that was ill prepared for terrorism and he acted out of desperation to move hostilities off American soil.

He needed a diversionary tactic. He attacked the terrorists proper in Afghanistan; however, US presence in that country alone was insufficient to draw terrorist interest away from attacking the American heartland. By subsequently invading Iraq, George W. was able to complete the diversionary tactic to buy time for building up US security capability at home. He piggybacked both a personal agenda (picking up where his father left off) and special interests (oil, reconstruction, and armed forces buildup ... etc.) on the plan for Iraq. In other words, US troops were to be offered as targets abroad to avoid civilians being targeted at home. From that the policy of preemptive strike was introduced, based upon the allegation of WMD, to make the whole situation palatable both here and abroad. That's why there was little attention paid to the aftermath of the initial invasion: the welfare of the Iraqi civilian population was not the foremost consideration at the time.

Later, the WMD cover story was discredited; so, the rationale for having invaded Iraq became Iraqi freedom. Then the US administration had to jump through hoops to establish a functioning free Iraq as an afterthought. Neither the appropriate strategy nor adequate forces were in place to accomplish that. Now, George W. is doing what he does best, creating another diversionary tactic by increasing troop strength in Iraq (Baghdad) to extend the status quo for Iraqi civilians beyond his term of office. The final disposition of the US occupation in Iraq will become the next President's problem.

There are basically two kinds of people: the decent and the indecent. Congratulate us instead on wanting a decent world, and moving to get it -- our foes are antidemocrat scum, our skeptics... cheerleaders for scum. Phooey. Where's the spirit that fought Hitler's Germany? I'd like to see some. Has the PM got the entire UK supply??

If that isn't conspiracy theory, it's the next thing to it. It also quite forgets the events of Tuesday, September the eleventh. This seems insupportable in view of the London bus bombings, and the foiled transatlantic airline plot.

What's it going to take to get the lion fully awake?

This is a surprise: tw adopting essentially the same position as the unabashedly patriotic magazine Soldier of Fortune.

Please explain what that had to do with Iraq?

Refusal to understand that it's the same war is refusal to even try to win it, Ibram. Wars have theaters of action; this one has two or more.

We're involved, whether we like it or not. Israel's involved, whether they like it or not. Europe is at least in some measure involved, and may get raped by al-Quaeda or other bigot nasties into deeper involvement, whether Europe likes it or not. It's all one war, sprinkled over quite a bit of the planet's circumference especially thanks to modern travel.

I'm waiting for an answer...

Please explain to me a SINGLE way that saddam hussein had anything to do with 9/11, besides the fact that he was "a damn dirty A-rab" or "Gas is expensive now!" (oh wait, that's not related to 9/11 either...)

I just did a quick Google search and found this link.
"A translation of the document shows the al-Qaida terrorist Saddam's government had identified was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

The document, dated Aug. 17, 2002, identifies the al-Qaida member as Ahmed Fadil Nizal Al Khalaylah, the real name of Zarqawi, and includes a series of photos.

A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida Organization”.

"This document provides startling documentation that at the very least that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.

She pointed out that although the document goes on to outline activities of the group, there is no indication the Iraqi government took any steps to stop al-Qaida from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law.

"The U.S. Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."


http:Newly released document
links Saddam to al-Qaida

Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection

One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."

You have received the correct answer -- not the answer you wanted to hear.

The better you suck it up, the realer you can be.:cool:

Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US bought al-Qaeda into Iraq.

Exactly how did you come up with that conclusion?

No matter how pedantic you are, still no answer to what al-Qaeda had to do with Iraq. Unless you're even more sucked up to the White House spinmeisters than I expected you to be.

Another victim of the WH spinmeisters. al-Zarqawi settled in the North of Iraq with the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurds, outside the influence of Saddam, nicely protected by the Anglo-American enforced no-fly zone. a-Z was a small time little known terrorist until the US made him important, Bush's man for all seasons.

OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?

I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.

Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Their propaganda says that Shi'ites are heretics, and they have a history of bombing Shi'a festivals. Sunni Iran supported the US against the Taliban back in 2001. I'm dubious about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iran. If Al Qaeda were working with Shi'ites, it would probably be to promote sectarian strife.

Yep, that's what Cheney said and of course you think whatever the VP says is true, right? Cause you suck up all the WH is excreting about Iraq. I'm sure you fully believed the WMD stories and Powell's bogus speech in the UN.

Also Cheney still was claiming, even after the story already proved to be a hoax, that Iraq secret agents were meeting with Atta in Prague. When will you realise that all US intelligence about Iraq were bogus and misused in order to convince gullible people like you? Who's making conspiracies here? Cheney or me?

Truth is more straight forward. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, in May 2003, they concluded that he still had both legs. Cheney's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.

Then again, you're entirely free to suck up everything Bush and Cheney are saying.

Hippikos, I'd say the gullibility is all inside your head -- hell, you've glommed my share, and welcome to it. I think you're talking through your hat.

And where's the point of your discussion about whether al-Z lost a leg or didn't? It certainly doesn't make your point, whatever it was. Is it not to be understood, even from what you put out, that al-Z was in danger of losing his leg to his injuries, but good medical treatment and maybe good luck saved the limb? Would it be the first time ever that the initial word on something was muddled? Hardly.

Nor, frankly, am I persuaded that the Atta meeting was a hoax. Iffy? -- possibly. Understand something: earlier in my life, I was an intelligence professional and I have considerable experience with how hedged and qualified intelligence info is. It is never the complete story in real time -- that only comes, if ever, some time well after the fact, from the piecing-together done by historians.

I remind you, since you evidently need reminding, that Republicans don't swear a blood oath to tell lies before each meal and before bed as a condition of joining the Republican Party. Your kind of thinking is exactly what keeps right-wingers believing they are smarter than left-wingers. Certainly I'm confirmed in this view, reading the guff I see here.

I believe in facts, you believe in Cheney. Now who's gullible here?It makes all the difference, and it was you who dragged in this highly questionable intelligence fact, which in fact is more a rumor. The fact that it does not confirm your theory does not make it irrelevant.Looking at what you write here I hardly believe that, but in the very unlikely event that it is true that you were an intelligence professional other than working on the post room, than you certainly would remember rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources.I don't see the relevance of this argument in this discussion, unless, as usual a feeble attempt to distract from the real issue.

I see you know nothing of intelligence work. My case rests. Assume I've been doing some unlikely things from time to time -- I'll just say SIGINT most resembles radio astronomy: you're using the electromagnetic spectrum to tease out information that is not necessarily meant for you.

I'm not here to steer you wrong, Hippikos, nor am I particularly interested in scoring points.

Now tell me: do you want America to win this? If not, who would you prefer to win?

Nothing a quick trip to Wikipedia can't fix.
Click on a few "External References" links for bonus points! Oh... . . . nevemind.

To say that AQ was/is active in Iraq may be a fact. To say that AQ was/is active in America, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark et al may also be a fact. In fact, it's evident that AQ most assuredly is and was active in all these countries along with just about every other country in the world.

Why didn't the US invade Denmark to find AQ, or Australia, or any other country such as Indonesia?

I think that's the point. Perhaps it was legitimate to invade Iraq under the guise of finding AQ members however, it would have been just as justifiable to invade any of the above mentioned countries if you accept that as the reason for invading Iraq. If you do accept that, then why Iraq and not 'anywhere else in the world'?

They have oil?

Yes, that's a fact.

So, one side believes Iraq was the only place to go to find AQ. The other side believes Iraq was invaded for oil.

Oh yeah, and to bring democracy to the arabs.

Democracy is what human beings in the full flower of adulthood will do -- unless bludgeoned, armtwisted, and browbeaten into putting up with something else.

Whatever else you may say to it, PNAC has one transcendant idea: a democracy will prosper best in the company of other democracies. The events of the twentieth century and the latter nineteenth demonstrate precisely that.

I'd call this the best single political idea of this and the previous centuries. I'd call Marxism -- the undemocracy -- the worst.

You cannot "bring" a democracy to a nation, like implementing a new OS to a computer. It has to grow from inside and takes a long time to establish itself throughout all levels of a nation.

The PNAC is a typical neocon apostolic document, exclusively seen from the US point of view to dominate the world as "Pax Americana" It is a faulty idea, which has been proved the last 3 years.

Those who still think PNAC is/was a good idea, need to get a wake up call. All PNAC has brought is weakening the US strategic position and total loss of world respect, in fact it has been an utter disaster for the US for which the Bush administration will be held to account for the next decades. I firmly believe Bush will go into history as the worst president ever and will succeed Nixon for that. His last feeble SOTU was a perfect example of a lame duck waiting for his finish.

I concur with UG's assessment of Hippikos. UG states that his experience is in SIGINT (signal intelligence). My experience is in HUMINT (human intelligence).

Terrorist operations can be highly compartmentalized. There may be few sources, possibly only a single source, with useful information about specific activities. Sources are roughly rated using an alpha-numeric scale with A-G representing the reliability of the source (from totally reliable to completely unreliable; or, of unknown reliability due to lack of history) and 1-7 representing how well the source is known (from an open book to anonymous). A single source of high reliability may be more important than multiple sources of low reliability. A single well known source may be more important than multiple anonymous sources. All ratings are in the context of the relationship of the source(s) to the specific information gathering person/agency. While having multiple / well known / reliable sources with information that can be corroborated by other means is preferred, this doesn't always happen in the real world. The statement " ... rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources." [bold type mine] is blatently false and reflects either fantasy; or, adherence to the old adage "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

I nonconcur with Flint's statement.

The Wikipedia and other open sources are not particularly good for learning contemporary tradecraft.

You mean someone like Curveball?, considered to be a "single well know source".

The Prague meeting exploited by Cheney was from a "single well know scource" (9/11 report).

Be it SIGINT, IMINT or HUMINT, fact is that US intelligence in the ME is not exactly a succes story, more like "baffle 'em with bullshit".

No matter what fancy pancy intelligence abbreviations you both google, if you only look at what actually happen in reality than everybody knows I'm right. As an expert you should know that until not so long ago the head of the ME intelligence didn't even speak Arabic and the dependence on electronic instead of on the ground human intelligence is the weakness of the US intelligence, especially in the ME.

The reason that progressive societies will fail is that the modern citizen feels they have a right to be informed and empowered in the decisions of their government. Since the government cannot act effectively while showing all their cards on the table, they have to withhold their true motivations, thus causing the "well-informed" citizen to question WTF they are doing. It's a catch-22. The government needs public support for it's actions, but it can't offer an adequate explanation while simultaneously achieving its goals. I guess that's why only good liars can lead effectively.

And that's why we have to bludgeon, armtwist, and browbeat them into accepting democracy!!

Torrere, kidding aside, you've got the wrong "them" in mind -- our whole purpose is to bludgeon the bludgeoners who oppose this improvement, leaving them too braindamaged or too dead to affect the progress towards democracy.

Not exactly a bad thing, I say. What's important is that the antidemocracy players be taken off the field. I attach very little importance to the circumstances of their departure, so long as it be permanent.

Nonconcur as a verb... now that does take me back. I'll add that really about the only way to know intelligence work is to do intelligence work and for some period of time.

Quite bluntly, no western power's intel effort has been remarkably successful in the closed regimes of the Middle East, which I attribute to inadequate HUMINT effort. The Iraqi nuclear program had absolutely everyone fooled, apparently including Saddam Hussein. But he's taken whatever he knew or didn't know to the grave and the one statement I've heard of him making about it was opaque. I get the impression that it was mid-level Iraqi officialdom that originated the deceptions.

P.S.: Hippikos is silent on whether he wants America to win. Since I think I can show that America's cause is humanity's is Hippikos', this is curious.

Whether that is the purpose or not, it is impossible. We can only bludgeon in their general direction, hitting lots of innocents, and turning them into foes.

Which leads me to ask the largely unanswerable: just what is your strategy for removing the hostility of the bigots and the control of irreplaceable resources by unfriendlies, and how is it better than what is currently in train?

Is not death the most reliable cure for bigotry?