Morality

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Where did you discover these objectives? Do you have an inside scoop from the pentagon or something? I would tend to agree with you that this is why we are really there, but the phoney excuses given for the current engagement are hardly palatable, either.

That's the original neo-con take on it. Even before W was elected, the PNAC encouraged the idea of permanent US bases in the ME, and placed Iraq at the top of their to-do list. I also like denBeste's strategic overview, which I've pointed to several times. W's pre-war speech to the AEI referenced some of these things as well, but it was not sound-bitten by the media very much.

I don't know where you get the idea that things are so rosey in Iraq, either. Casualties continue to mount and many of our soldiers are now on their third tour of duty over there. Moral amongst our troops is way down.

Well, I read the numbers about Iraqi troop readiness, and agreed with the bloggers that covered it, that the media got head-faked by one number and ignored the important numbers that show that the Iraqis are coming along. Very uneven, but making progress.

I understand that the Iraqis themselves were the first line of defense during the October constitutional election, for most polling places. A day that saw almost no violence.

Yesterday there was interest in a meeting between the Iraqi government and insurgent leaders. Wow.

And now there will be a trial of Hussein AND another election, and hopefully the country will crystallize around all that as well.

Oops, AP reports the White House is spinning to say they were the first with a troop reduction plan.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uh,...make that, someone on the other side of the table, who could listen for their side.

Heh. But I meant speak, as in "we agree to all of your terms", and their people would accept it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uh,...make that, someone on the other side of the table, who could listen for their side.

WWI ended with both sides negotiating an end to the war. In WWII, Churchill and FDR in the White House decided negotiation at war's end would be different. A lesson they took from history. Churchill and FDR stated quite bluntly the purpose of WWII - the strategic objective: unconditional surrender.

When negotiations break down, then war starts, only because both sides could not come to agreement. When the war is ended, both sides are now (hopefully) taking from all new perspectives. War is only to change those perspectives.

In WWI, both sides were ready to sue for peace - the Germans moreso. Negotiations were conducted with all parties in 'changed mindsets'.

In Vietnam, Paris negotiations eventually were about abandoning S Vietnam to the North without letting lesser informed Americans know we had lost. We lost because we went to war on lies - without a strategic objective and without a smoking gun justification.

In WWII, negotiations were more one sided - the allies dictating all major (but not all) terms.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is far from ended. The country is so dangerous that literally half of Afghanistan cannot be visited even by the Red Crescent. The country is so dangerous that most all NATO troops remain in the large cities - green zones. Posted was an example of a safer place in Afghanistan entitled Understanding terrorism on 20 Jul 2005:

The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:

Zabal is a safer part of Afghanistan. Red Cresent aid workers can travel in Zabal. So when did this war end?

Similar to what happened in Vietnam when most Americans never really understood the purpose of war - the reason for a strategic objective - the reason why leaders should be learning about the world instead of boozing - the reason why your leader should know the names of adjacent nations instead of taking an 18 month crash course from Wolfovitz and Rice - the reason why George Jr starts wars without exit strategy which is the Vietnam mistake all over again.

There is this thing called morality which we have not even discussed. Morality is not about ethics. But another concept that demonstrates why these hawks advocate wars for reasons not based in military doctrine and lessons of history. Too many hawks just know that bombs cause damage and therefore would have won the Vietnam war. These paper hawks never bothered to first learn even that N Vietnam had almost no useful targets. And yet these hawk also know that if we beat the crap out of their forces or capture more insurgents, then we will win the war. Body counts and captives prove victory? Not from lessons taught in war colleges.

A victory strategy was being conducted by the 101st Airborne in Mosul when its commander, Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus as demonstrated in 101st Airborne Scores Success in Reconstruction of Northern Iraq. Meanwhile someone without first learning from history, Paul Bremer, was conducting a campaign to lose the war. Unfortunately, too many have not learned military doctrine and therefore did not understand Petraeus' warnings and why Bremer literally threw away a military victory.

Recently US claims to have captured hundred of insurgents in a latest military sweep in Iraq. Sounds more like 'search and destroy' which only killed or captured mostly innocent civilians making insurgent recruiting productive.

Amazing how many so quickly advocated war in Iraq without even learning from a basic military primer; without learning the purpose of war. For example, notice blaring silence from Urbane Guerilla. Suddenly we are discussing things taught in war college. Things that a leader should have learned long before god tells him to be president.

[Brett's Honey]

There were no WMD's in Iraq.

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

We pretty much have scoured the country and captured, interrogated, in some cases possibly tortured, tens of thousands of prisoners. Considering the importance of WMD's in justifying the war, if any were found, we would have heard about it.

This is why, when you listen to any GWB speech on Iraq, the phrase 'establishing democracy' has replaced 'removing WMD's'.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

It was the US that kicked out the inspectors before the war. The inspectors were saying they couldn't find anything, but they were willing to keep looking.

That's not to say Saddam was happy they were there, or that he didn't enjoy making things difficult for them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

Yes. I said that right after the invasion because;
1- Saddam knows he can't beat us with his army.
2- His only shot is world intervention before or after the invasion.
3- If he had 'em and used them against our invasion he'd still lose.
4- With many months warning he had plenty of time to hide or export them,
hoping when they weren't found, world opinion would vindicate him and we'd have to leave with him still in control.

I'm wasn't saying that happened, just expounding on possibilities.
Now I think there wasn't any at all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them?

It’s just not possible to have all those weapons or even many of them without being detected. Our spies (the ones that really did accurate spying) were from countries adjacent to Iraq. Countries that had far more to fear if they got it wrong. Those sources kept reporting no more WMDs which is why no nation adjacent to Iraq wanted to be involved in the Iraq invasion.

We knew this. After 1996, Saddam gave up on his WMDs. Suddenly the UN Inspectors could find no more evidence of these WMDs. Saddam's son-in-laws had defected and told all.

Always analyze a situation by looking at it from 'His' perspective. Look at Saddam's quandary. It was posted here before the Iraq war began. Saddam cannot let you nor anyone else know he is toothless. Saddam has numerous enemies - including Muslim Brotherhood (ie Osama bin Laden) and especially Iran. So Saddam must feed the rumor mill. He tells his generals that they don't have WMDs, but that the adjacent general does. No one in Iraq's military knew how toothless Saddam really was. Perfect for Saddam's personal security.

Saddam no longer had ambitions on his neighbors. He had no weapons to win an invasion. His latest hobby was authoring two great novels. In Saddam style, he attempted to become one of the world's great authors.

Of course those who really knew this stuff were left without a voice. The George Jr administration had decided they must correct a mistake they made in the George Sr administration. They were 'drinking champagne' (an exaggeration) when they should have been defining conditions for surrender. Swartzkopf had to invent the terms of surrender because those political types in Washington never learned some of what has been posted above - ie purpose of war.

Therefore silence from those who really had a 'feel' for what was happening in Iraq. This was accomplished by repeated challenges to those who said Saddam does not have this or that weapon system. It was just too difficult to report things accurately.

American spies learned how profitable lying could be. The administration had decreed that Saddam had WMDs - and was only seeking proof of their decrees. Spies such as Curveball literally distorted or invented stories that George Jr et al reported as fact.

Most damning were reports from the 'Rockstars' who said Saddam and his sons would be in Dora Farms that became the target of 'shock and awe'. The CIA station chief, Tim, personally entered that crater in Dora Farm that was supposed to be Saddam's bunker. There was no bunker. But the spies reported what the administration wanted to hear. Why? $1million weighs 44 pounds. Facts that CIA agents learned because a 44 pound bag was dropped onto a person in Iraq to buy guns and munitions - this done to multiple people multiple times. Numerous 44 pound bags were dropped throughout northern Iraq. In some places, a cup of coffee sold for $100 because no one could make change. This is how badly the administration wanted to prove that Saddam had WMDs.

Senior administration officials had at stake in personal reputations because these George Jr and George Sr administration officials would otherwise be historically recorded for never learning basic military doctrine - the purpose of war. They celebrated rather than provide Swartzkopf with political conditions for surrender. They thought war was only about destroying an enemy. They had to fix their mistake - inventing, if necessary, Saddam's WMDs.

Are the George Jr administration officials that bad? Well one need only look at where the USS Bataan sat for 5 days as people starved and died in New Orleans. Did you know about the Bataan? Did you know about the 'Rockstars'? Facts that determine whether the administration could lie - and you would have to believe them. Unfortunately too many people knew Saddam must have had WMDs only because George Jr lied about it.

This posted so that you can understand how George Jr could manipulate the spin and lies so thoroughly.

[Undertoad]

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll resist saying "Black Helicopters".
Hmmm.... no I won't.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

I don't know about the bags, but one of the first things they did after 9-11 was set up their own intelligence agency that answered to Rumsfeld.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

You know, Ted Koppel retired because tw didn't answer this question.

[richlevy]

Did anyone see a clip of this? I watched the final bit about torture last night. Poor Donald did not hold up very well.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cf...SFELD-11-30-05

But that press conference _ an appearance with the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace _ was also notable for something more important than vocabulary.

Asked what U.S. soldiers should do if they find the forces of the legitimate Iraqi government torturing prisoners, Rumsfeld said that wasn't the soldiers' responsibility.

But Pace responded, "It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."

Rumsfeld intervened, "I don't think they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."

Pace politely _ and rightly _ differed. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

For a very twisted view of an ugly current reality, it was pretty funny. Pace very quietly and gently corrected Rumsfeld, as if Rumsfeld was a little slow. For a moment it looked like a scene from "Of Mice and Men".

It will be interesting to see how long Gen. Pace keeps his job. He's certainly got the balls for it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You know, Ted Koppel retired because tw didn't answer this question.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

Money dropped by CIA human hands. Why ask a question so irrelevant when the important point is about CIA spending massive funds seeking information and buying guns. 44 pounds is relevant because the money had to be carried in; many hundreds of pounds of money.

Anyone who could supply information on WMDs could get rich. Truth being irrelevant. CIA bought stories that the administration wanted. It was an agent’s dream job. Almost unlimited cash; total independence. Reality? Where in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is there any requirement for reality? A preordained political agenda defined what information would be bought. Same philosophy that also demands loyalty to the administration rather than to the nation. Just like in the Nixon administration.