The WMDs Are In Syria

[nvxplorer]

Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/29/iraq.intel/
http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2004/10/prewar_intellig.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137234498.html?from=storylhs

 

[Verv]

I think an issue on the insurgency that you have to consider is the fact that even though we knew there would be an insurgency, it would be fundamentally unknown the proper way to combat them.

Could we predict the exact way that they would behave? Could we predict the communications tools that they would use? Could we predict to what extent foreign money and involvement would be or perhaps to how the local communities would react, etc.?

There are a lot of variables, and even though a strong insurgency would have been predicted, what is your evidence that this was not heeded? Are we really doing that terrible of a job considering the circumstances?

I think the media really called Afghanistan really wrong -- people were throwing around the infamous Vietnam phrase quagmire but in reality it was really not applicable, and other than the small occupation force duties we have, the insurgency has been far less deadly (and not even comparable) to the Iraqi military group.

We did very well, and we are doing pretty good considering the circumstances in Iraq.

I consider this, to date, pretty successful counter-insurgency efforts. Before Zarqawi died he even had a distressing letter to his organization noting that they may be exhausted.

They have something to fear in this letter:

"The letter depicts insurgents who are worried about what effect Iraqi self-rule, scheduled for this summer, will have on their efforts. It also expresses frustration over the lack of cooperation between Iraqis and foreign fighters, the Americans' staying power and the growing solidification of Iraqi security forces." (Link to CNN article)

 

[Sleeker]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/29/iraq.intel/
http://bowman.typepad.com/cubowman/2004/10/prewar_intellig.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137234498.html?from=storylhs

That's better.

But you're assuming that all pre-war assessments said the insurgency would be this bad. There are so many variables that are mentioned in the post before mine that predicting the strength of it are next to impossible. It's basically just lucky and unlucky guesses.

 

[nvxplorer]

But you're assuming that all pre-war assessments said the insurgency would be this bad.

No, I'm merely countering your claim, "We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq."

 

[Sleeker]

No, I'm merely countering your claim, "We had little idea that such an insurgency would become so involved in Iraq."

I guess you're right. However, I'll still argue that few people actually expected the insurgency to be this bad. I'll concede that people did believe it a possibility, but not a likely one.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.

The NIE report was just one of many. How about one from January 2003, was that before we invaded?

"The Bush administration disregarded intelligence reports two months before the invasion of Iraq which warned that a war could unleash a violent insurgency and rising anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it emerged yesterday.

The warning, delivered in two classified reports to the White House in January 2003, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council, the same advisory board that warned the Bush administration last month that the violence in Iraq could descend into a civil war.

That forecast radically departs from George Bush's upbeat assertions that the situation is improving in Iraq, and he initially dismissed the assessment as a "guess".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1314953,00.html

 

[Sleeker]

I covered the pre-war stuff in my previous post.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I guess you're right. However, I'll still argue that few people actually expected the insurgency to be this bad. I'll concede that people did believe it a possibility, but not a likely one.

You mean this one. Given the long and violent history of Iraqi secterian struggles, the only people who would figure it not a likely scenario when be the one's who removes the Government infrustructure, creates as power vaccum, and who thought we would be greeted with chocolates and flowers strown at our feet. The problem with ideologues is they don't consider history when it comes to struggles, be it Iraqs, or ours in light of Vietnam and because of that are prone to do the same things over again, and yet expect different results.

~take care

 

[Sleeker]

I don't doubt that they believed an insurgency would be mounted, but rather, I think that the average person in the government thought it would be much weaker.

Vietnam and Iraq are totally different though.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I don't doubt that they believed an insurgency would be mounted, but rather, I think that the average person in the government thought it would be much weaker.

Vietnam and Iraq are totally different though.

Well there you go. That's why we are in the quagmire we are in. In this admin, the average Government officials duty is one of loyalty and compliance, rather than considering and imparting reality. Moreover, there are huge similarities to Vietnam and Iraq.

 

[k]

Look at the dates. The report was finished in October, 2003. When did we invade? March, 2003. Like I said, we didn't predict such a resilient insurgency, and maybe I should clarify, before we invaded.

The Bush admin knew exactly what would happen which is one reason for the "shock and awe" campaign. Think about it...had we simply removed Saddam and created little violence it would be damn hard justifying permanent bases in Iraq. This drawn out War will justify US permanent presence in Iraq, at least to those who are apathetic.

 

[k]

I imagine it is the year 2035...there will still be Fox News Breaking Stories claiming the WMDs have been found.

 

[64kSim]

Well you know what the US federal government should really have a better system of tracking the chemical weapons that we give to countries like Iraq. I mean I can be so frustration when CIA employees run off with them. Perhaps if the world’s largest manufacturer of chemical and biological weapons, the United States, would just not give them away to people we might be a little better off.

 

[ElvisFan42]

I imagine it is the year 2035...there will still be Fox News Breaking Stories claiming the WMDs have been found.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Neverstop again.

 

[Verv]

Well you know what the US federal government should really have a better system of tracking the chemical weapons that we give to countries like Iraq. I mean I can be so frustration when CIA employees run off with them. Perhaps if the world’s largest manufacturer of chemical and biological weapons, the United States, would just not give them away to people we might be a little better off.

That is agree'd but the 1980s were a different time period when we were jockeying for position with the Soviets, and trying to play a larger role in most reasons.

The only way we could have very immediate and direct effects on many of these nations was distribution of these goods.

It is not as if this was done entirely reasonlessly.

But to b respectful, I do see your point and in the future this behavior will be entirely unacceptable.

 

[Verv]

I imagine it is the year 2035...there will still be Fox News Breaking Stories claiming the WMDs have been found.

Which would be entirely appropriate.

It is always pertinent to bring up news of past conflicts, especially if it shows more information on what was happening in the first place.

Why is this supposed to be a witty statement that people slap you on the back for? Sounds more like a statement of fact that will probably come true.

 

[ElvisFan42]

Which would be entirely appropriate.

It is always pertinent to bring up news of past conflicts, especially if it shows more information on what was happening in the first place.

Why is this supposed to be a witty statement that people slap you on the back for? Sounds more like a statement of fact that will probably come true.

Come on, it was pretty funny. I think he was eluding that they'll be reporting they were found when they'll be finding stuff from 1991.

 

[Alabaster]

That's better.

But you're assuming that all pre-war assessments said the insurgency would be this bad. There are so many variables that are mentioned in the post before mine that predicting the strength of it are next to impossible. It's basically just lucky and unlucky guesses.

Among all of my acquaintances and friends who specialize in the Middle East, academics, military members, and businessmen, all of them knew there would be civil war and insurgency. Anyone even remotely familiar with the region could have predicted this.

 

[64kSim]

That is agree'd but the 1980s were a different time period when we were jockeying for position with the Soviets, and trying to play a larger role in most reasons.

The only way we could have very immediate and direct effects on many of these nations was distribution of these goods.

It is not as if this was done entirely reasonlessly.

But to b respectful, I do see your point and in the future this behavior will be entirely unacceptable.

So being that it was the 1980s you tell me that giving chemical weapons to a tyrannical dictator is ok but now that it is the zeros we have the right to use the US military to take them back? Unless there is something that we are all unaware of then that does not make any sense. Production storing and selling chemical weapons is something that the US is doing which is a direct violation of the CBT. Yet even if we had founds some of our own weapons in Iraq, we would still be hypocritical one for selling them to him and two for running over his country because he had them.
That is no different then cop planting evidence on a person then throwing them in jail. Oh wait that is exactly what has happened.
You don’t give someone a gun, tell them to defend them selves and their way of life and then throw them in jail, unless you also throw the provider of the weapon in jail as well. It is called conspiracy to commit murder something with the US is 100% guilty of.

 

[Sleeker]

The world is different than it was in 1980, especially politically. The Cold War is over. Foreign policy has changed.

Well there you go. That's why we are in the quagmire we are in. In this admin, the average Government officials duty is one of loyalty and compliance, rather than considering and imparting reality.

That's what we get for not having a pessimistic government. We should've hoped for the best and prepared for the worst. What we did was slightly different. We hoped for the best and prepared for the slightly-to-moderately bad.

I will say that that part was a mistake.

Moreover, there are huge similarities to Vietnam and Iraq.

Nope.

The Bush admin knew exactly what would happen which is one reason for the "shock and awe" campaign. Think about it...had we simply removed Saddam and created little violence it would be damn hard justifying permanent bases in Iraq. This drawn out War will justify US permanent presence in Iraq, at least to those who are apathetic.

Baseless speculation.

Among all of my acquaintances and friends who specialize in the Middle East, academics, military members, and businessmen, all of them knew there would be civil war and insurgency. Anyone even remotely familiar with the region could have predicted this.

I have a policy of disbelieving personal stories. Nothing against you as an individual, but I can't verify your sources or information.