Good News from Iraq

Read this!

“Senior Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq”
Thursday September 16, 2004
By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)

A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government’s most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.

The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined - at best - the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were ``trend lines that would point to a civil war.‘’

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for President Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document, which runs about 50 pages, draws on less formal intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

The assessment was initiated by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials who provide long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community but report to the director of central intelligence. It was completed under acting CIA Director John McLaughlin. He and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved it.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night.

The document was first reported by the New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.

It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

A review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration’s slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn’t act with greater urgency.

``It’s beyond pitiful, it’s beyond embarrassing, it’s now in the zone of dangerous,‘’ said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing where the State Department explained its request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year mostly for public works projects.

The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and a variety of Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections slated for January.

``We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts,‘’ said Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. ``It’s important that you have some flexibility.‘’

But Hagel said the shift in funds ``does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we’re winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble.‘’

Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued - even before the war - that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.

But the criticism from the panel’s top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the presidential election in which President Bush’s handling of the war is a top issue.

Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration - what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,'' Lugar said. The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.‘’

He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.

``This is an extraordinary, ineffective administrative procedure. It is exasperating from anybody looking at this from any vantage point,‘’ he said.

State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.

Schlicher said the department hopes to create more than 800,000 short- and long-term jobs over two years, saying, ``When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence.‘’

Congress approved the $18.4 billion in November as part of an $87 billion package mostly for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the time, administration officials said the reconstruction money was just as important as the military funds. But only $1.14 billion had been spent as of Sept. 8.

``It’s incompetence, from my perspective, looking at this,‘’ said the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware.

In separate action Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to shift $150 million from the $18.4 billion to buttress U.S. efforts to help victims of violence and famine in the Darfur region of Sudan and nearby areas. The transfer was approved by voice vote with bipartisan support.

Each time I see a posting that is showing how bleak the situation is, I am going to counter it and show the opposite side: Again these are words said by the Iraqi and the Arabs …These are things not being said, or heard:

Hearts and minds.
I guess we all agree that hatred is probably the main precursor of violence, so a full understanding for this unpleasant feeling is needed if we we?re looking for a way to end the violence, and finding answers for questions like: why hatred appeared? when did it begin for the first time? what are the related factors? and who contributed in provoking hatred? Is a key step in curing hatred.

As the world is living the 3rd memorial of the 9/11 attacks, the BBC opened a forum for Arab readers to allow them to voice their feelings about the ?hatred wave against America?. This time the forum has a special significance because Arabs are directly related to this topic and the largest part of this ?wave? comes from Arab countries.
I?ve found that all Iraqi participants (except for two) carry no hatred for America, not to mention the admiration and gratitude for America that were clear in some Iraqis? comments.

Anyway, I decided to translate most of the comments posted by Iraqis along with some of the Arabs? comments that caught my attention so that you can view some opinions that can rarely be seen in the media and I decided not to translate any of the offensive comments which you can find almost everywhere. I must add that most of these posters with offensive comments said that their comments were directed ?against the American government, not the people?.

America is not an enemy of Arabs and Muslims, on the contrary, on many occasions she backed Muslims when other Muslims did nothing like in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. America helped us get rid of the worst dictatorship in history and despite the unstable security situation now in Iraq we breath freely and say whatever we want to say without fear from Saddam and his dogs
I was-and still-working as a teacher and Saddam was paying me 2 dollars a month, can you imagine that? while he paid thousands and thousands to his followers. Things now are much better for me and I feel grateful for America and the coalition for what they did to save us?
Amjad Al Ubaidy -Baghdad/Iraq.

Americans are peaceful and smart people. Unfortunately, this hatred was created by some clerics who try to brain-wash the youth every Friday after the prayers so many would go out with hatred in their hearts and anger toward America?
Reemon A?adil Sammi-Iraq.

First of all I?d like to send my condolences to our American friends on the third memorial day for the terrorist attacks. And I send my condolences too to my Iraqi fellow citizens who have been suffering from terrorism every day and every hour for nearly two years on the hands of people who hide behind slogans of religion and patriotism.
I call all Iraqis to build strong relations with the Americans. Hatred has to be eradicated especially between Iraq and USA (if ever existed) and between Arabs and USA in general.
The false slogans of Arab nationalism that emerge here and there calling people to hate America are all against the interests of our people. We followed these slogans for decades and look what we?ve ended up with; poor countries ruled by dictators. We must head to the other side and hopefully we can find our goal there and put an end to the poverty and oppression that are ruining our nation?
Mohammed Abu kelel-Najaf/Iraq.

The problem lies inside us, the Arabs; whether governors or citizens. We?re still living the era of backwardness, ignorance and crying for the past. We don?t understand how decisions are made in America and the defect is within ourselves.
I?m a big admirer of America and the progress that America had achieved in such a short period.
One more thing, those who offend America must not forget that it was America who helped the Muslims in Albania, Bosnia, Kuwait and Sudan. Where is the Arab civilization? We never saw the Arabs offer help but we all saw the food packages and flour sacks carrying the letters USA.
The problem with Arabs is that they always have find someone to put the blame on.?
Fadi-Libya.
I have a secret to share with you; we (my brothers and I) used to hate America some years ago, just like the vast majority of Iraqis and that was the result of being isolated from the rest of the world by the thick walls Saddam built around us. We used to be reading one newspaper, watching one channel and hearing one voice; the voice of the ?mighty leader? that looked eternal but those feelings gradually changed after we started to see more clearly who was actually responsible for Iraq?s misery and began to open our eyes, ears and minds to other points of view and to other sources of information in a seriously dangerous search for the truth.

Later, the uncertain feeling changed to a more positive one when we realized that our only chance to get rid of the tyrant was in America?s hands especially after 9/11 and the events that followed that day as we saw that America is determined to fight terrorism and terrorism-supporting criminal regimes.

During the eighteen months that followed 9/11 we were dreaming of the day when the ?zero hour? finally comes and nothing will ever match what we felt when we saw the first missile strike Saddam?s palace.
After we started this blog, we had the chance to meet many Americans, both civilians and soldiers and we discovered the noble feelings and the warm wishes they have for Iraq and Iraqis and that made me believe more than ever that we?ve put our trust in the right place.
Yes, I love America and I?m a friend of all American, and I?m truly proud of that, and so are many, many Iraqis who owe their freedom to the great sacrifices made by American people.

  • posted by Omar @ 20:45

Now to answer you comments Lumpy on the accomplishments. Yes they are unmeaningful for us. But just think how these people suffered. Under the Saddam Hussien regime? And those small goals to us, mean so much for the Iraqi people… Just remember that

Joe

“Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

  • Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger 1916

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”
-Albert Einstein

War Rhetoric’s Toll on Democracy
by Bruce A. Williams
"Since it’s difficult to communicate to a mass audience the inevitably complex and usually debatable reasons for one nation’s use of force against another, the leader of the enemy state must be used to stand for the entire nation and then demonized. Lasswell meant the term quite literally: “The enemy leader must be portrayed as the incarnation of evil, the devil himself.”

Portrayal of an evil leader, guilty of unspeakable atrocities, possessing aggressive intent against one’s country, works with the more jingoistic and aggressive segments of the population, Lasswell wrote, those who, he concluded, find “peace in war” and are labeled today as “Nascar dads” living in the “red” states."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-12.htm

When Things Turn Weird, The Weird Turn Pro
Propaganda, The Pentagon And The Rendon Group

"A few years ago, Washington media consultant John Rendon was regaling an audience of cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy with one of his favorite war stories.

When victorious U.S. troops rolled into Kuwait City, he noted, they were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving American flags. The scene, flashed around the world again and again on CNN, left little doubt that the U.S. Marines were welcome in Kuwait.

“Did you ever stop to wonder,” he asked, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?”

A ripple of knowing chuckles passed across Rendon’s military audience.

“Well you now know the answer,” he said, “That was one of my jobs then.”

Rendon has had a lot of plum assignments since Desert Storm, including a $23 million propaganda campaign in 1991 aimed at undermining Saddam Hussein with smuggled leaflets and radio broadcasts beamed into Iraq. And now Rendon has another plum – it was reported recently that he’d been hired for $100,000 a month to help the Pentagon plant propaganda in the foreign media as part of the Bush administration’s War on Terrorism.

According to The New York Times, which broke the story February 19, “The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries.”
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5188/view/print

How To Sell a War
The Rendon Group deploys ‘perception management’ in the war on Iraq

“The paradox of the American war in Iraq, however, is that perception management has been much more successful at influencing the emotions, motives, and objective reasoning of the American people than it has been at reaching foreign audiences. When we see footage of Kuwaitis waving American flags, or of Iraqis cheering while U.S. Marines topple a statue of Saddam, it should be understood that those images target U.S. audiences as much, if not more, than the citizens of Kuwait or Iraq.”
http://www.inthesetimes.com/print.php?id=299_0_1_0

This war brought to you by Rendon Group
By Ian Urbina
“If Saddam is toppled, a Rendon creation is standing by to try to take his place. The Iraqi National Congress (INC), a disparate coalition of Iraqi dissidents touted by the US government as the best hope for an anti-Saddam coup, has gotten the go-ahead from US officials to arm and train a military force for invasion. The INC is one of the few names you’ll hear if reporters bother to press government officials on what would come after Saddam.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK13Ak01.html

Remember the “fake” Kuwait babies/incubator story…RENDON

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
That’s also what my post said. There are many ‘off-limits’ zones where US troops cannot go, because violence erupts. Rather than stir up a hornet’s nest, troops agree to stay out, on the request of the new Iraqi government. However, insurgents still control these areas. And the longer insurgents control these areas, the harder it will be to regain control later. But because of the upcoming presidential election in the US, the administration does not want to launch any major offensives unless necessary… until the election is over. Plus it is illogical to wipe out the very people we are supposed to be “liberating”. [/quote]

No argument with the idea that controlling things sooner rather than later would be good, but perhaps your speculations concerning motive are a bit much…

I will admit this doesn’t look good, and the criticism I read from the outgoing Marine commander didn’t look good, although it’s not clear why this pullout occurred.

Perhaps you’re getting a bit too “nuanced” here for your own good. The original point was that the hard-core Baathists had been allowed to run away rather than being captured or being killed. This is different than advocating the wholesale slaughter of the army. It seems we knew which brigades were Saddam’s crack Baathist troops. And, if we had been willing to slow our progress to the military objective of the moment of capturing Baghdad, we could have taken the time to capture many more soldiers, rather than letting them run away. But, perhaps, the planners were worried about losing men to counteroffensives, or in losing men by allowing Baghdad to strengthen defenses, or any number of strategic worries related to slowing progress toward the capital. And, of course, they believed at the time Saddam had WMD, and they didn’t want him to have the chance to use them. As for the precise reasoning, I don’t know. And neither do you.

Blatantly ignored is different than putting something lower on the priority scale, whether it’s the right or wrong decision in retrospect. I’m pretty sure the recommendations weren’t ignored.

You’re making a straw man by misstating the position. It’s not that success can’t be handled – it’s that sometimes you defeat the enemy too quickly to get your victory plan in place. It’s not a precise parallel by any means, but look at the problems invading armies have had in Russia historically when they advanced faster than their supply trains. You can advance too quickly sometimes. In this case, we advanced more quickly than we could get our support ready.

As to the “cakewalk” point, the problem there was twofold: 1) There were many people – some of the same expert planners you always like to site, actually – who were predicting a protracted battle. This was one reason why they wanted to advance fast. But I think even the commanders in charge were surprised by how quickly we actually advanced – because the army mostly ran away…; 2) They miscalculated both the amount of cooperation they would receive from Iraqis – mostly because they didn’t seem to consider how the various groups would jockey for power after Saddam was removed – and the amount of insurgents who would come in over the borders from Syria and Iran.

As I said, it’s not perfect, but I don’t know what standard you’re applying for judgment in most cases – actually, I do – it’s 20/20 perfection. That’s never happened. Of course there are things to be improved – and I think Bush and his team are more likely to actually stay the course and improve the situation than Kerry et al would be.

Yeah! More good news! Things are going great! They love us! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Intel Officials Have Bleak View for Iraq

Thu Sep 16, 4:04 AM ET

By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The National Intelligence Council presented President Bush (news - web sites) this summer with several pessimistic scenarios regarding the security situation in Iraq (news - web sites), including the possibility of a civil war there before the end of 2005.

In a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate, the council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined that - at best - stability in Iraq would be tenuous, a U.S. official said late Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

At worst, the official said, were “trend lines that would point to a civil war.” The official said it “would be fair” to call the document “pessimistic.”

The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005. But the official noted that the document draws on intelligence community assessments from January 2003, before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deteriorating security situation there.

This latest assessment was performed by the National Intelligence Council, a group of senior intelligence officials that provides long-term strategic thinking for the entire U.S. intelligence community.

Acting CIA (news - web sites) Director John McLaughlin and the leaders of the other intelligence agencies approved the intelligence document, which runs about 50 pages.

The estimate appears to differ from the public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. “We’re making progress on the ground,” Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.

A CIA spokesman declined to comment Wednesday night.

The document was first reported by The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night.

It is the first formal assessment of Iraq since the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat posed by fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

A scathing review of that estimate released this summer by the Senate Intelligence Committee found widespread intelligence failures that led to faulty assumptions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Disclosure of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq came the same day that Senate Republicans and Democrats denounced the Bush administration’s slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn’t act with greater urgency.

“It’s beyond pitiful, it’s beyond embarrassing, it’s now in the zone of dangerous,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee members vented their frustrations at a hearing during which State Department officials explained the administration’s request to divert $3.46 billion in reconstruction funds to security and economic development. The money was part of the $18.4 billion approved by Congress last year, mostly for public works projects.

The request comes as heavy fighting continues between U.S.-led forces and Iraqi insurgents, endangering prospects for elections scheduled for January.

“We know that the provision of adequate security up front is requisite to rapid progress on all other fronts,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ron Schlicher said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said circumstances in Iraq have changed since last year. “It’s important that you have some flexibility.”

Hagel, Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and other committee members have long argued - even before the war ? that administration plans for rebuilding Iraq were inadequate and based on overly optimistic assumptions that Americans would be greeted as liberators.

But the criticism from the panel’s top Republicans had an extra sting coming less than seven weeks before the U.S. presidential election in which Bush’s handling of the war is a top issue.

“Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration - what I call the ‘dancing in the street crowd’ - that we just simply will be greeted with open arms,” Lugar said. “The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent.”

He said the need to shift the reconstruction funds was clear in July, but the administration was slow to make the request.

State Department officials stressed areas of progress in Iraq since the United States turned over political control of Iraq to an interim government on June 28. They cited advances in generating electricity, producing oil and creating jobs.


Associated Press Writer Ken Guggenheim contributed to this report.

[quote]tme wrote:
Yeah! More good news! Things are going great! They love us! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain![/quote]

tme,
I hope you’re not expecting a straight-forward response on this bi-partisan condemnation of our policy in Iraq from those that think this war is going “great” . Expect to see a quote from an Arab woman/child saying “I’m so happy Saddam is gone/I love America! (waving American flag).” Or a quoted poll stating 95% of people in the Middle East love us. Oh and “these intelligence officials don’t know what’s going on on the ground.” Funny how the subject of this thread is “Good News from Iraq”, and the only good news stated was shown not to have happened. Anyways, continue…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Lumpy wrote:
That’s also what my post said. There are many ‘off-limits’ zones where US troops cannot go, because violence erupts. Rather than stir up a hornet’s nest, troops agree to stay out, on the request of the new Iraqi government. However, insurgents still control these areas. And the longer insurgents control these areas, the harder it will be to regain control later. But because of the upcoming presidential election in the US, the administration does not want to launch any major offensives unless necessary… until the election is over. Plus it is illogical to wipe out the very people we are supposed to be “liberating”.

No argument with the idea that controlling things sooner rather than later would be good, but perhaps your speculations concerning motive are a bit much…

As far as Falluja, Marines were ordered to attack the insurgents (followers of Al Sadr). Then three days later the administartion turns around and pulls the marines and attempts to negotiate. Is that a strategy? Is that a smart use of US troops?

I will admit this doesn’t look good, and the criticism I read from the outgoing Marine commander didn’t look good, although it’s not clear why this pullout occurred.
[/quote]

So BB,
Mind providing some rationale as to why his speculation about motive is “a bit much.” Do you believe that the upcoming election has had no impact on the admin’s decision to avoid hitting insurgents head on in an offensive that will surely incur American casualties? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just would like to see a reasonable argument, especially given you next comment regarding the outgoing commander. The rationale I’ve heard is that the Admin is waiting until an Iraqi police force is trained and ready to go in with us. The timetable for this is “around December” (after our elections, before theirs).

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

So BB,
Mind providing some rationale as to why his speculation about motive is “a bit much.” Do you believe that the upcoming election has had no impact on the admin’s decision to avoid hitting insurgents head on in an offensive that will surely incur American casualties? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just would like to see a reasonable argument, especially given you next comment regarding the outgoing commander. The rationale I’ve heard is that the Admin is waiting until an Iraqi police force is trained and ready to go in with us. The timetable for this is “around December” (after our elections, before theirs).[/quote]

Sure. One of the main strategic intra-Iraq problems is getting the new government to have legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi citizenry. To the extent our military is leading the charge, it looks like we’re calling the shots, which undermines the new Iraqi government. Thus, they’ve been trying to equip an Iraqi army (or police force or what have you) to take the point in a lot of these areas.

Another problem in terms of keeping the country together is the fact it is made up of 3 major factions: Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. This goes back to the fact that Iraq was not really a traditional country, but was forced onto the map by the British back in the early 1900s – and they didn’t pay much attention to how well the various indigenous peoples got along. Anyway, to the extent any of the insurgent groups identify themselves as belonging to one of the major factions, when the U.S. military goes after them, that can lead to alienation of other members of that faction, who think the U.S. is against their group. To assuage that, they want a multi-factional Iraqi force to lead the charge against the insurgents.

Overall, both those reasons seem much more likely to me than speculation about political calculations w/r/t the U.S. election.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
tme,
I hope you’re not expecting a straight-forward response on this bi-partisan condemnation of our policy in Iraq from those that think this war is going “great” [/quote]

Nope Moriarty, I don’t. Nothing but “dancing in the street” crowd around here. Although I somewhat expect BB to post 17 pages of text that purports to repudiate the article but doesn’t really say anything relevant. Or ZEB will accuse the Republican senators of being “name-caller” or “haters” or something equally pointless.

tme:

Wanting to keep personal attacks out of political debate is not pointless!

[quote]tme wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
tme,
I hope you’re not expecting a straight-forward response on this bi-partisan condemnation of our policy in Iraq from those that think this war is going “great”

Nope Moriarty, I don’t. Nothing but “dancing in the street” crowd around here. Although I somewhat expect BB to post 17 pages of text that purports to repudiate the article but doesn’t really say anything relevant. Or ZEB will accuse the Republican senators of being “name-caller” or “haters” or something equally pointless.
[/quote]

tme:

Normally I like your posts, but you are misrepresenting me as an apologist or an ostrich (head in the sand) on this issue – I think I’m more of an optimistic realist, for what it’s worth. I do have a problem with endless negativity and not recognizing any positives though…

Anyway, read what I’ve written above – it’s significantly less than 17 pages, so your eyes won’t get tired.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
tme wrote:
Yeah! More good news! Things are going great! They love us! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

tme,
I hope you’re not expecting a straight-forward response on this bi-partisan condemnation of our policy in Iraq from those that think this war is going “great” . Expect to see a quote from an Arab woman/child saying “I’m so happy Saddam is gone/I love America! (waving American flag).” Or a quoted poll stating 95% of people in the Middle East love us. Oh and “these intelligence officials don’t know what’s going on on the ground.” Funny how the subject of this thread is “Good News from Iraq”, and the only good news stated was shown not to have happened. Anyways, continue…[/quote]

BTW, I did post a link to another slew of good news from Iraq, but you have to follow the link, as it is too many pages for tme:

great article, BB.

I was amused by this…

“…the Boy Scout movement is slowly reviving too, with some essential help from their American counterparts. Young Iraqis will finally be able to enjoy a youth movement in their country that is not an indoctrination vehicle for a dictator.”

Instead, they can enjoy a youth movement that is an indoctrination vehicle for christianity. Somehow, I think Islam would have preferred indoctrination by a dictator.

[quote]CDarklock wrote:
great article, BB.

I was amused by this…

“…the Boy Scout movement is slowly reviving too, with some essential help from their American counterparts. Young Iraqis will finally be able to enjoy a youth movement in their country that is not an indoctrination vehicle for a dictator.”

Instead, they can enjoy a youth movement that is an indoctrination vehicle for christianity. Somehow, I think Islam would have preferred indoctrination by a dictator.[/quote]

Eh, no matter what they think of the Boy Scouts, I think they’re preferable to Saddam’s version of the Hitler Youth.

But the article is chock full of interesting stuff. I gather they publish a round-up like that every 2 weeks, so I’ll look for an update next week.

Not trying to be a dick BB, because I happen to think your optimism is admirable…but…your article:
The Caravan Moves On
“A roundup of the past two week’s good news from Iraq”
is about a report done by the [b]Center for Strategic and International Studies[/b]

The same CSIS who’s president and CEO is John J. Hamre former U.S. deputy secretary of defense (1997-1999)

The same CSIS who’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Senior partner is Sam Nunn - who is on the board of directors for TexacoChevron (w/net profit increase over 500% in 2003) and GE among others.

The same CSIS who’s Chairman of the Executive Commitee, Anne Armstrong, was a former board member of Halliburton and also current member of General Motors corporate advisory counsel.

I’m just sayin’…

Lest anyone think this mess was some big surprise:

“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would have instantly collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different and barren outcome”.
Former President George Bush, 1998 - ‘A World Transformed’

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You’re making a straw man by misstating the position. It’s not that success can’t be handled – it’s that sometimes you defeat the enemy too quickly to get your victory plan in place. [/quote]

We’re a year and a half past the military victory. When will Team Bush put the Victory Plan in place?

Correct. Team Bush didn’t consider how the four tribal factions in Iraq would jockey for power. As I said, INCOMPETENCE. Maybe you can explain WHY they didn’t know that? Maybe one reason is that the White House’s “suits” in the Pentagon who planned much of the war like Paul Wolfowitz have zero military experience, and before the war Wolfowitz had never actually been to Iraq?

Sorry, but I demand that the people who are leading our military and our nation are COMPETENT and good at their jobs. The clowns we currently have in the White House are neither!

My understanding is that only 5% of the resistance are foriegners, the rest are native Iraqis.

If the White House underestimated the number of foriegn fighters (and again, I don’t think the State Dept. did!) again you have to ask WHY did they underestimate that?

Again, it points out that Team Bush are bumbling the war!

This one’s for Chucksmanjoe. Maybe you can tell us how many candybars were passed out today?

[b]“Far graver than Vietnam”

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale[/b]

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is “winning” in Iraq. “Our strategy is succeeding,” he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military’s leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush’s war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: “Bush hasn’t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it’s worse, he’s lost on that front. That he’s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It’s lost.” He adds: “Right now, the course we’re on, we’re achieving Bin Laden’s ends.”

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: “The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We’re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It’s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong.”

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There’s no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College’s strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: “I don’t think that you can kill the insurgency”. According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

“We have a growing, maturing insurgency group,” he told me. “We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they’re all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view.”

After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. “I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah,” said General Hoare. “I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn’t tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House.” Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.

“If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation,” Terrill explained. “Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.” He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: “There’s talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents.”

“I see no exit,” said Record. “We’ve been down that road before. It’s called Vietnamisation. The idea that we’re going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can’t defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq.”

General Odom said: “This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn’t as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we’re in a region far more volatile, and we’re in much worse shape with our allies.”

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas “could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign”. Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. “If we leave and there’s no civil war, that’s a victory.”

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that “a decision has been made” to attack Fallujah “after the first Tuesday in November. That’s the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there.”

He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad’s razing of the rebel city of Hama. “You could flatten it,” said Hoare. “US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy.”

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. “I’ve never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There’s a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic.”

(Maybe the GOP can get Arnold to mock the generals at the Army War College as “miltary girlie men”? The military brass should step aside and let the REAL military experts like Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle take over! THOSE guys know how to run a war!!!)

Far Graver Than Vietnam
Most Senior US Military Officers now Believe the War on Iraq has turned into a Disaster on an Unprecedented Scale

According to the US military’s leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush’s war is already lost.

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true.

General Odom said: “This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn’t as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we’re in a region far more volatile, and we’re in much worse shape with our allies.”

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. “I’ve never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There’s a significant majority believing this is a disaster.”
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Word on the street is, the military is furious with the civilian neocons, and things are getting ugly.

Sounds like the Brass are getting ready to spill the beans about 9/11 too since they were essentially tricked into standing down…

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
This one’s for Chucksmanjoe. Maybe you can tell us how many candybars were passed out today?

[b]“Far graver than Vietnam”

Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale[/b]

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday September 16, 2004
The Guardian

'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is “winning” in Iraq. “Our strategy is succeeding,” he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.

But, according to the US military’s leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush’s war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: “Bush hasn’t found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it’s worse, he’s lost on that front. That he’s going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It’s lost.” He adds: “Right now, the course we’re on, we’re achieving Bin Laden’s ends.”

Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: “The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We’re conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It’s so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong.”

Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There’s no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."

W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College’s strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: “I don’t think that you can kill the insurgency”. According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.

“We have a growing, maturing insurgency group,” he told me. “We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they’re all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view.”

After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. “I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah,” said General Hoare. “I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn’t tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House.” Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.

“If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation,” Terrill explained. “Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators.” He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: “There’s talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents.”

“I see no exit,” said Record. “We’ve been down that road before. It’s called Vietnamisation. The idea that we’re going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can’t defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq.”

General Odom said: “This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn’t as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we’re in a region far more volatile, and we’re in much worse shape with our allies.”

Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas “could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign”. Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. “If we leave and there’s no civil war, that’s a victory.”

General Hoare believes from the information he has received that “a decision has been made” to attack Fallujah “after the first Tuesday in November. That’s the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there.”

He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad’s razing of the rebel city of Hama. “You could flatten it,” said Hoare. “US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy.”

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. “I’ve never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There’s a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic.”

(Maybe the GOP can get Arnold to mock the generals at the Army War College as “miltary girlie men”? The military brass should step aside and let the REAL military experts like Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle take over! THOSE guys know how to run a war!!!)

[/quote]

Lumpy –

These types of stories are quite annoying, mostly because they purport to show or prove much more than they actually do. Break it down, and what do you have? Several disgruntled officers with bad opinions of the President and Rumsfeld – some of whom manage to damage their credibility with ridiculous overstatements (“Worst in History!” “Much worse than Viet Nam!” – unless those guys are really old, or were serving as staff secretaries or something, I don’t think they would have been high enough in the chain of command to have credible opinions on the back-and-forth between the high command, the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense’s office at that time – how old is Colin Powell now? And he was what rank in Viet Nam?)

Also, you have a few disgruntled retired officers claiming to speak for the majority of the military – yet somehow, when polls are done, the majority of the military doesn’t agree with the above. How does one square those two pieces of information?

The truth of the matter is that there has been tension between the Secretary of Defense’s office and some of the older military officers who were “retired” very early on in the Bush administration – before September 11. I wouldn’t be surprised to find these guys were among those. There was a lot of fighting over cancelling certain weapons projects, such as the “super canon” and some fighters and helicopters which the contracters hadn’t been able to deliver on time and were wrought with problems.

Also, there appears to be an attempt here to imply that any dissension with any military people must be a harbringer of doom. Historically, generals and civilian leaders have not always agreed on things. For example, Truman fired MacArthur in Korea, and Lincoln fired McCellan, among others – and McCellan ran against Lincoln in the Presidential election.

Let’s be clear – in a large organization such as the military you will always encounter a variety of opinions on what should be done and how it should be done. The mere fact you have a few dissenters doesn’t prove a case. If you want me to go through the history, I’m sure I could come up with some retired generals during the Cold War who were certain we were going to be overrun because Senator Joe McCarthy was stopped before he could out all the Communists, and they were running policy out of certain governmental units.

This isn’t to say that the opinions in the above article are proved wrong – it is to say they aren’t proved right. What they are are the opinions of a few men who do have military experience and credentials, and which contradict the opinions of other men who have military experience and credentials.

Let’s just stick to the facts of what’s going on over there, which, as I’ve said, are a mixed bag.