It's Official, Iraq is Breeding Terror
[Dave Glazier,
Sunday September 24, 2006 at 3:13am ]
Following up on J.D.s post immediately below, the New York Times is reporting today that the U.S. intelligence community has officially recognized what is painfully obvious to any intelligent observer, the conflict in Iraq has increased, not decreased, the terror threat to the U.S.
What I find particularly sad about this was that it was both entirely predictable in advance and largely avoidable. IF we had to invade the place (which obviously we did not), we could have at least complied with our obligations under international law to preserve public life and safety as occupiers and reduced the likelihood, or at least severity, of the current conflict.
What I find particularly sad about this was that it was both entirely predictable in advance and largely avoidable. IF we had to invade the place (which obviously we did not), we could have at least complied with our obligations under international law to preserve public life and safety as occupiers and reduced the likelihood, or at least severity, of the current conflict.
0 Trackbacks /
As I attempt to grasp the magnitude of allowing this President unfettered authority between now and the end of his second term, I can't help but wonder what it would take to dissuade a man with his level of certainty and conviction from undertaking the actions that will facilitate the ideations he seems convinced have been presented to him through a mix of fate and faith.
History may well record this chapter as a period of unparalleled extremism. Worse yet, the United States may well be viewed as the primary force in facilitating that eventuality. George Bush, when asked about his legacy, seems content to respond that while he can't predict the future he believes his actions will prove to be pivotal. He may well be correct but, in this instance, I would suggest he recall the expression, "Be careful what you wish for".
Read more here:
www.thoughttheater.com
I note that the Seattle-Post-Intelligencer also has a story on this intel report from AP. But my concern is: Will it be given any above-the-fold newsprint in South Carolina and Texas, and what will Fox say. CNN has already rolled out Al Haig to poo poo the reports as anti-Republican propaganda.
Unfortunately, I think this story will be ignored by a large percentage of the American people because Bush's hand-holding-buddies in Saudi Arabia suddenly release a report on the supposed death by typhoid of bin Laden.
In any case I believe the most important quote from the article you linked to is:
But the knucklehead-in-chief ignored it then and will ignore it now.
Of course, I will say this whole process of negotiation has been on-going for over a year now, especially with the "Bumahals" (Albu Mahal) tribe and the groups have been in varying stages of conflict against Al Qai'da affiliated tribes. But if anything, what it states is that the tribes from which these 30,000 Sunni fighters are to be drawn represent a significant percentage of the overall Sunni population in the Anbar province.
Iraqi Tribes Turn on al Qaeda
September 22, 2006: Coalition forces in Iraq have suddenly received the manpower equivalent of three light infantry divisions. They did not suffer any repercussions in domestic politics as a result, and now have a huge edge over al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. How did this happen? Tribal leaders in the largely Sunni province on the Syrian border got together and signed an agreement to raise a tribal force of 30,000 fighters to take on foreign fighters and terrorists.
These leaders have thrown in with the central government in Baghdad. This is a decisive blow to al Qaeda, which has been desperately trying to fight off an Iraqi government that is getting stronger by the week. Not only are the 30,000 fighters going to provide more manpower, but these tribal fighters know the province much better than American troops – or the foreign fighters fighting for al Qaeda. Also, this represents just over 80 percent of the tribes in al-Anbar province now backing the government.
The biggest gain for the coalition is that they will now have forces on their side that know the terrain in al Anbar province. This is a very big deal in a campaign against the terrorists. When a force knows the terrain, it can make life miserable for its enemies. Just ask any Army unit that has gone through the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. The OPFOR (Opposing Force) has fought there for so long that they know all the good ambush sites. Units coming there for a training session don't have that knowledge – and they pay the price in the exercises held there.
This is just one sign that the tide is turning in favor of the coalition in Iraq. Many of the Sunni leaders have decided that the Shia-dominated Iraqi government is not going away any time soon, nor is the democratic process. As such, the tribal leaders have now decided that it is better to be on their good side rather than to be seen as uncooperative. Constant Arab casualties in al Qaeda attacks – and al Qaeda's desire for a caliphate – have not helped matters any, either.
On the other hand, by signing up with the government, these tribal leaders will hasten the construction of government services, and gain something else just as valuable – the government's gratitude. In essence, the tribal leaders have slowly been won over by a combination of coalition perseverance and al Qaeda strategic ineptness.
This agreement, if it holds, is a win for the United States, which is looking for measurable progress. It is a win for the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, which will now have an easier time in that province. It is a win for the tribal leaders, who will get a few markers they can call in down the road from the government for their assistance. For al Qaeda, now facing the equivalent of three additional light infantry divisions composed of people who will have knowledge of al Anbar province, it is a huge loss. The major downside is that many of the tribesmen still support al Qaeda, and will defy their tribal leaders by continuing to work with the terrorists, or by not being very enthusiastic in fighting the terrorists. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
If one reads the NYT article, it refers to Iraq as a spawning ground for a growing terror problem, not just amongst Iraqi's, but worldwide.
As to the fellow you quoted, who is he? What are his credentials? Where are his source documents? What does this non-sequitur have to do with the artice Dave has referenced.
Or did I miss something?
Al
Ooops. Sorry, wrong war and wrong "threshold of victory" spin. Right, Dio, we are winning in Iraq, and only supporters of terrorists can't see it.
By the way, I commanded a motorized rifle company in the 32nd Guards Motorized Rifle Regiment (I was OPFOR in the 11th ACR, and we "portrayed" the 32nd Guards MRR in wargames at the National Training Center). I have always heard that it was the greater knowledge of terrain that led to the consistent string of OPFOR victories. I can attest that this is simply not true. We knew the terrain better, but that doesn't help you in attacking a defended position, or when attacking in the Central Corridor and crossing Barstow Highway to fight at the Peanut-Chod or when blowing out of Colorado Wadi or when trying to take the Iron Triangle or Hill 720 or any of the other terrain features that are immediately evident to anybody looking at a map, and are as well known to the Blufor as to the Opfor. Or have you never heard of the Whale Gap or the Low Bowls of the Whale? Even if you haven't, if you are half-way proficient and above the rank of E-3, a 30-second glance at a 1/50,000 map will reveal those key terrain features to you.
The Opfor won because it drilled the basics again and again and again and again. It did not worry about parades or politics or pageantry, it only worried about basic battle drills and gaining an accurate and timely picture of the enemy. We won because we would do whatever it took to know the enemy - that is, intelligence preparation of the battlefield was critical - and because we would endlessly wargame different enemy courses of action so that whatever the enemy did, we were prepared for it - that is, hope is not a method, we won because we planned better.
We invaded Iraq without a plan for success and with only a rudimentary understanding of the enemy we were to fight, and those in the Army who knew better were either forced out, forced to shut up, or simply ignored.
Nothing has changed to date. But yeah, sure, Dio, we are winning, the Iraqis are grateful, and all is right with the world.
And more to the point, why is this even news? Saddam was the iron band that held this nation-state together. Any analyst that looked at Iraq told Dubya and Dick that. They didn't care, they had their agenda, and now, what a shock, Iraq is a failing state that, like many other failing or failed states, spawns barbarians like sea monkeys.
What MIGHT arrest this is some sort of political plan to keep the damn country from falling into desuetude. So far if there is one I haven't heard it. The Kurds still want out, the Sunnis want their rule back and the Shiites want the whole nutroll, plus the gangsters want profit, the Iranians want continued American embedment (as in tar-baby-style) and the tribes...who the hell knows. From here it looks like twelve monkeys fucking a football and still Coach Dubya is telling us we've gotta hold that line.
What line? Jesus wept, it seems like we are still trying to figure out who's playing what and how.
Sad? yes. Out of control? Probably. But news?
Nah.
Ummm...that wasn't such a good idea, 1) because the freaking hilltops at NTC have no trees. This was a critical part of the plan designed for the south German hills/Fulda Gap and somebody on G-3 forgot about that whole desert thing. But more to the point, 2)the freaking OPFOR was just slicker than water off a cat's ass. They smoked our supporting positions, plastered us with HE and came in right behind the hate with some of the best squad fire-and-movement I've ever seen. Went through us like creamed corn through a duck. Mopped up the entire battalion in something like ten hours. They had to just bring us back to life to have a rotation worth the cost of sending us there.
(Oh, and to make matters even more fun, that field problem was known as "Death drop '81", where some high winds on the DZ dragged a bunch of guys into the heavy drop, killing two and injuring a dozen or so.)
So no advantage in local knowledge there: daylight deliberate attack of a defended position. Just damn good tactical and technical proficiency.
I hated you guys, JD. Being repeatedly killed at NTC was no fun. It taught our officers and senior NCOs a lot, but us privates just used to loathe going there (only thing was we hated Polk a lot more, 'cause it was so damn humid and we got killed there just as much).
How come I always forgot this stuff come re-up time? I must have been smoking crack...
But man did we work hard. The opfor is better not because of secrets or hidden trails or cheating or help from OCs, but because we had to deploy to the NTC for a full-up rotation every month, and we were expected to fight and win every mission. I found I learned more in six months at the NTC than I had learned in all of my years of service combined prior to that - and I had served in the 101st, been on the trail as a drill sergeant, and served a tour in Korea on the DMZ before I arrived at Irwin.
I must have forgot to annotate the link when I pasted it.
It comes from a website called strategypage.com that often covers the "uncovered" news that is of relevance to military and intelligence matters.
It just struck me as pertinent because of the efforts I was aware of to enlist the support of the Anbar tribal chieftains to fight against Al Qai'da. This has been an off and on process ever since May, 2005 when we launched Operations Matador, New Market, and Lightning..
There was also other operations in play at the time, but those are the ones that were made public.
Iraq Tribes Turn on Al Qai'da
The reason I thought this was of particular interest is due to the number of fighters/tribes the author asserts are involved, as well as past efforts by coalition leadership to urge the Sunnis to adopt this posture against Al Qai'da.
confirming link #1
Confirming link #2
So the question in my mind, Aviator, is how come we're not seeing this reported on CNN, or even Fox??
And why, just because I'm reporting this information, do folks like JD immediately discount the report without even bothering to verify the information..
Or maybe JD will never be convinced anything positive can ever happen in Iraq. He's just mentally written the whole thing off...
As for all of these NTC memories, I can't relate because I never had the chance to go there, though I've heard quite a few tales about the experience..
But two iterations at JRTC taught me quite a bit about the hubris of American leadership. I was a HUMINT team leader (THT) and at the last moment I had a guy the same rank (his date of rank was earlier) put in charge because his team had been captured while he was on sick call (and he was a buddy of Humint CW2)..
After spending 5 hours holding a group of "reporters" awaiting host country support from brigade, I was finally ordered to let them go around 10PM by the Battalion S-2 we had been assigned to support. So these reporters, instead of being escorted out of the area, drove themselves off right by a line of choppers the battalion had lined up (the same ones I had earlier warned the S-2 were subject to sabotage and attack due to lack of protection and being clustered together)..
Well, anyhoo.. I suggested we needed to move our vehicle back within the perimeter and off the line, but this team leader nixed that idea because he was too tired to scout out a new location at night.. Well.. around 5AM, the OPFOR accompanied by an O/C "keymaster" blew up all of our choppers, and then proceeded to advance right through where this SOB TL had decided to park us for the night.. KIA'd 4 of them before I got "tagged", but the frigging O/C was rekeying the OPFOR to multiply their numbers, so we didn't have a chance in hell.
Cost my team 3 days in the PEHA (as I previously mentioned) because our brigade S-1 didn't have their sh*t together and didn't even know we were KIA'd until day 2 (so he couldn't request replacements). Needless to say.. I was a bit p*ssed off at this TL the entire time we were in the PEHA. But I have to say that I was more p*ssed off at myself for letting him ignore the tactical situation.
The brigade I was attached to at the time suffere 1,300 casualities in that one week iteration.. And as I recall, the MIC phase was the last 24 hours, so I believe the majority of the casualties were suffered prior to that.
A very eye-opening event, needless to say.. And no offense to the NTC veterans here, but for training on deploying to Iraq, JRTC is probably a far better experience.
But I still submit that even with all of these training iterations, there is just NOTHING that can properly prepare a soldier for what awaits them in Iraq except being led, or accompanied, by soldiers who have been there.
But that's certainly not to denigrate those who are involved in the JRTC program. It is invaluable.
Diogenes
I read that news with great interest myself. I must say, though, I'll be more interested in reading the full report, so that we can see if the NIE draws the right distinction between "causation" and "correlation."
I hope the ivory tower is suiting you well, lucky bastard. AJW
WRT the NYT story today, well, I don't take much pleasure in doing so, but I told you so. Way back. And I'm not that smart. How is that so many presumably smart people, presumably working for the American people, just totally screwed the pooch?
I note the troll side of the house is citing some guy nobody ever heard of as somehow being an authority on Iraq. OK. They've been using Limbaugh and Hannity—those well-known masters of strategic intelligence and military operations—as experts for years. Why not some other dude? Put it on Fox News and you've got a winner. You know, everybody knocks the so-called MSM, but they seem to somehow be able to come up with the real deal on occasion. Recall that the NYT broke the story on NSA; now they've come up with another good one. Their sources are still pretty good. I wonder how Tony Snow—he who used to get unwarranted respect because of his supposed status as a serious journalist, but will never again—will spin this one.
Also, be prepared for some serious heat coming down on the intelligence community. The administration has pretty much quit citing them as sources—I mean, they (we) only pay some $40B per year for the intelligence agencies—so I can see even more straight scoop coming directly out of the White House. I wonder how Negroponte is doing these days.
JD and FDChief discussing fond memories of the NTC: Old soldiers never die, they just talk others to death. Sorry, guys, it's just that I've never had the fun of going out to the beautiful California desert for war games and I am envious. Actually, what you're discussing about the OPFOR and the visitors is very germane to Iraq. Experience tells us that those who best know the battlespace have an enormous advantage. Gee, who knows Iraq best? Another unfortunate reality is that years ago—and I don't know if it holds true now—it was often said that OPFOR also won because of superior tactics, Soviet tactics, which didn't augur real well for what a lot of people viewed as doctrinally hide-bound U.S. forces. But what do I know? I'm just an intel weenie, although I will say it's kind of interesting—in the abstract—to see a U.S. commander plow ahead in the face of information indicating that the "plan" indeed did not survive the first encounter.
JD, you've made some impassioned posts about the need to "stay the course" in Iraq—even though you acknowledge that it was a blunder of historic proportions to go in at all. Many of us have disagreed; my prescription has always been "find a face-saving way to exit and let 'em sort it out as history tells us they must." How do you feel about staying the course now?
Hear, hear!
And more to the point, why is this even news? Saddam was the iron band that held this nation-state together.
Oh.. so you want to bring Saddam back, now do you?? Free him from jail and let him take over again?? Let the minority rule over the majority.
But, what a message that will send to the world.. "Don't EVER think about opposing the dictatorial systems that have oppressed your countrymen.... you'll find out that the Americans have returned to their old ways of supporting "stability over freedom."...
FDC.. why not just come out and state that you think Iraqis are too stupid and ignorant to govern themselves.
Why not just call them sub-human and only fit to be subjugated and ruled by an iron fist.
Sounds like you need to apply a little immediate action that cognitive "hang-fire" of an idea.
Diogenes
He's too modest. Here you go:
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/glazier.html
We won because our soldiers fought better as crews and as individuals, not becasue of platoon or company tactics. By the time we made contact we usually knew how the battle would go (armored warfare in the desert is similar to the days of battleships fighting at sea - by the time you open fire the only thing left is to do the shooting, the time for manuever is over).
Our tactics were not superior, our soldiers were. Our tactics were no better than our equipment - it was inferior to the M1 and the Brad (although BMP2s were actually a much better vehicle than I thought before I went to the NTC). We could not fire on the move - we didn't have 3d stabilization. We didn't have thermal sights or laser range finders. Anybody who thinks the AK is superior to the M-16 series rifles is a poser who reads too much Soldier of Fortune - I would take an M16A2 or an M4 any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Our common was often blasted into oblivion - we had to jump freqs 34 times one mission, and we always knew the Blufor was listening in on our conversations. No, we did not win due to superior tactics or superior equipment. We won because each and every soldier knew every step of the plan and what needed to be done to accomplish the mission. By each soldier, I mean each soldier. Each driver knew exactly where we were going, exactly what our mission was and how to accomplish it. You could literally kill off all NCOs and officers, and the enlisted men would re-establish a chain of command, mount up, perform their pre-combat checks, conduct a roll-over drill, cross the LD right on time, and fight and win - with nobody above the rank of E-4 in the entire regiment. I loved the OPFOR regiment and I was so impressed by the OPFOR troops, many of whom were there as their first duty station and had no idea that soldiers everywhere were not always expected to know as much about the mission as the regimental commander, or that some units have soldiers that wait to be told what to do before doing it. I never felt like I led my soldiers at the NTC. They could have gotten along just fine without me, my primary job was to give them what they needed - information, a plan, and supplies. As far as a plan, they could and would argue with me about tactics and plans, God bless their souls, and often I would make changes based on the imput of PFC Snuffy or SPC Bagodonuts (or SPC Monroe, my driver and a better soldier than I, smart as hell and calmly proficient at everything he ever did). Don't even get me started on the brilliance and genius of 1SG William Rawley, a master of the profession of arms.
No, it sure as hell wasn't superior tactics or equipment or terrain knowledge. It was the soldiers. They expected victory whatever the odds. No, they demanded it. And they would work as hard as any staff officer or commander to obtain it.
It was often said that OPFOR was an MOS - that is, be you a cook or a grunt or DAT, didn't matter, kill BLUFOR is your job. And rank didn't matter worth a bucket of spit, the OPFOR saw all ranks and often saw higher ranks with their heads up their 4th point of contact. They didn't care about rank, they cared only about winning - because if they didn't beat the Blufor then the Blufor would leave the NTC maybe not having learned what they needed, and they would deploy into real combat and die because we in the OPFOR hadn't tried hard enough to beat them.
It was perhaps the best experience I ever had in the Army, and I grew to love that desert, although "life be hard in the desert."
There is nothing better than dancing naked on the objective having zeroed out the enemy. Nothing.
1) Their goals were political, not nationalist, and by that standard they have been extremely successful;
2) Our enemies are smarter and more focused. Bin Laden bragged that he would snare the United States into fighting on their turf and he did it.
3) The driving force behind the decisions have been old, inflexible conservative men living in the past. Its not surprising that they are totally reactionary and cannot adapt to a new enemy whose tactics are designed to use America's strengths against it and to exploit its weaknesses.
4) They don't care if we win. So long as American's beleive Republicans are better at fighting the war on terror the war is a political advantage. They and bin Laden are really on the same side. Both benefit from the war continuing.
It's starting to sound like the Iraqi Information Minister is now writing White House press releases.
White House reaction to reality: total denial
Yes, I'm saying that for most Iraqis, life was better under Saddam than it is right now, and that the might be better off if we had never removed Saddam. And I'm also saying that no, Iraqi society as presently organized is practically incapable of American-style democracy.
This has nothing to do with being "stupid and ignorant" and everything to do with t massive lack of all the institutions needed for a functional democracy.
(And if you look back at my postings elsewhere I have publicly questioned our own American public's present competence to "govern themselves" if that's what you want to call the sink of self-serving mendacity that passes for our Congress, greedy hubris in our Executive and craven power-worship in our Supreme Court.)
Under Saddam the Iraqis had to follow Saddam's rules. The rules sucked if you were a fundamentalist Muslim or a Kurd (until the no-fly zones) but at least you knew them. Now its' Hobbes' choice - the war of all against all. Who knows if you've offended SCIRI or Dawa or the Baath or PKK or if you're just getting shot by some thug paid off by your wife's lover?
Every damn time this issue come up some Cheney-snuggler starts braying "Well? Wouldya like to have Saddam back? Wouldya?" And all I will say is what I've said before: if you could have gone back to 1917, knowing that by overthrowing the guy would eventually result in Stalin, isn't the a real possibility that the Russian people might have had second thoughts about defenstrating Nicholas 2?
(I'm not the only one. I understand that some conservative commentators have suggested that we should have done what Cheneyburton wanted to do in the first place; just install Chalabi and leave.)
One of the pre-war analysis pieces (I think it was in Jim Fallows' "The Fifty-first State" - still well worth reading, BTW) the author made a comment to the effect that invading Iraq was going to be like opening a present, and if things turned out wrong (i.e. other than we were being promised by Mssrs Rumsfeld and Cheney and Wolfowitz) we were getting not the new Germany but the new Yugoslavia, held together only by the brutal force of a dictator.
I seem to remember that he said something like "Saddam was Saddam in part because Iraq is Iraq. Congratulations - you now own Iraq. You are the new Saddam."
Well?
The link could have read:
White House reaction to reality: total denial
To quote Stephen Colbert:
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
In response to Prof. Glazer:
What I find particularly sad about this was that it was both entirely predictable in advance and largely avoidable.
A-freaking-men.
1) war with Iraq was unnecessary
2) it has wrecked the military
3) it has demonstrated the limits of American Power.
On that last point, George Will said while appearing with George Stephanopulous:
The rhetoric has changed, people have noticed that. What we’re getting today is the one thing the United States, I suppose in some hideous sense, needed, which is a comprehensive demonstration of the limits of our power.
This is denial squared: not only did bad things happen, but we needed them to happen.
Times
Ret Generals Speak at Dem Hearing
May just be for more political theater but the guest list looks pretty strong from my perspective.
Witnesses: Major General John R.S. Batiste, U.S. Army (Ret.), who was senior military assistant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and commander of the 1st Infantry Division, serving in Iraq in 2004 and 2005; Major General Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army (Ret.), who was responsible for training the Iraqi military from May 2003 to March 2004, and for rebuilding the Iraqi police force from March through June 2004; Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC (Ret.), who served in Iraq in 2004 and was responsible for establishing bases for the newly reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.
Modern day Gulag?
I never did like semi-autos, whether they were military or civie grade, just didn't like them. Too much like shoot'n a .22, only the ammo is more expensive. (yes, my most fierce opponent outside of deer and bear hunting season is the reknown paper target...well, and the ribbing from friends when I miss an easy shot).
Secondly, yep, no surprise here, when Bush busted out the Yale school bravado, strutted around like a hemmroid impaired cowboy call'n for whiskey, and talking tough like some street gang-banger with "Bring it!"
Yeah, what did we all expect, OBL to call up and say, "Oh, I say, dear chap, why all the fuss? Tell you what O'l boy, why don't we have a spot of tea, and reason out our differences."
No, AQ's response has been very clear, and that clearness came in the form of the sh*t hitting the fan for the past 3 years...in staccato succession, and what do we have to show for it?
How many of our soldiers have died post "mission accomplished" ?
How many of our soldiers have been wounded post "Bring it" ?
Yeah, I hate numbers, and our's seems to grow everyday. Someone tell me why I shouldn't let the bitterness overwhelm me?
Someone explain to me why we should put up with this incessant bullsh*t that is our government?
Someone explain to me why I shouldn't invoke the Declaration of Independence's clause...nay, an imperial statement for any good citizen with a conscience:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-"
Someone give me some hope, cause all I see is more and more Republican bs piling up in the tunnel, and less and less light at the end of it.
I heard once that cherry-picking evidence was a bad thing. So why the rush to cherry-pick evidence out of the NIE before we can see the whole field?
Good, so you're in favor of releasing the NIE to the public
in time for them to read it before the midterm elections ?
Because like it or not, every voter has to make their mind
up about whether to vote R or D in November; and what's
going to happen in Iraq is highly relevant to that choice.
I think voters should have the opportunity to be fully
informed about whether the current approach to Iraq is
making us more, or less, secure. From the public statements
of leading Democrats and Republicans, we know that electing
Republicans will give us more of the same, whereas
electing Democrats will lead to serious consideration of
alternatives - e.g. a timetable for withdrawal.
"I'm particularly interested in seeing if the report demonstrates properly delineates between "correlation," "co-incidence," and "causation"."
Oh, yeah, the President's speeches are always *so* careful
about that kind of distinction. And yet I don't recall
you voicing any complaints about those.
You'll have to point me to which of the President's speeches blurred distinctions between correlation, co-incidence, and causation. I'm not at all surprised that you don't recall me voicing any complaints about the President's speeches -- I don't think I've ever blogged about one of his speeches, at least not in the last several years.
All I said was that, without full information, I don't think it's prudent to rush to judgment. I stand by that point -- it's common sense, isn't it?
Adam, are you seriously suggesting that the invasion and subsequent chaos in Iraq has decreased the number of terrorists? Of COURSE you are. Because you have yet to make a single comment on this site that suggests that Mr. Bush has ever, in the entire course of this presidency, made a single error. You apparently think he is perfect, and any bad news is either 1) false (see the report that you think must be released in full before any judgment can be rendered, even though it is classified and the administration will not release it), 2) partisan (see anything you have ever written), or 3) Clinton's fault.
You don't think it prudent to "rush to judgment" after 3 and a half years of continuous combat operations in Iraq because you are not risking your life - nor, and I am guessing but prove me wrong, is a single member of your immediate family risking (or risked) their lives in Iraq. I would hazard a guess you don't even have any first cousins - but why "rush to judgment" about whether we are succeeding or failing in war? After all, it isn't the people's business - it is "secret information" that the people don't need to know about (kind of like proof of WMDs). After all, the only thing the people have to do is give their children to our nation to be misused, abused, and forgotten - well, not ALL the people. Not you. Not Bush. Not Cheney. Not Frist. Not any senior Republican. Nor any of their family.
So traitors like me who "rush to judgment" should shut up and wait to be told what the facts are - I am too un-informed to draw my own conclusions. It isn't like I have family there (I do) or friends there (I do) or have seen loved ones die there (I have). What right do I have to rush to judgment? After all, the only reason for thinking the report is correct, that the invasion of Iraq has super-charged terrorist recruiting (as predicted by many, including myself, as far back as the fall of 2002 prior to the invasion) is that almost every national security expert walking the planet says the same thing - that the war in Iraq helped the terrorists. But another national security expert disagrees - VP Cheney. So why do the vast majority of national security experts, retired generals, admirals, and State Department experts disagree with the VP? After all, Mr. Cheney has been so spectactularly correct on everything else the past six years.
Without full information we shouldn't rush to judgment? How about without full information we shouldn't have rushed to war? Was that prudent?
If you believe so strongly that Mr. Bush is correct, take your happy as* down to a recruiting station and sign up. Phil Carter put his body where his mouth is. So have I. You haven't. If you are a patriot and you believe this war is worth the lives of our children, sign up. If not, STFU.
I would have to agree, though I think you may have obliquely addressed points made by one of his speeches, other than that I cannot recall a direct dissection of a speech.
"All I said was that, without full information, I don't think it's prudent to rush to judgment. I stand by that point -- it's common sense, isn't it?"
If only your voice of reason was around four years ago when the drums of war were beating for Iraq. Alas, a day late, and a dime short.
(For those of less vulgar vocabularies, JD told me to "shut the f*ck up".)
"You apparently think he is perfect"
You're being ridiculous. The first law review article I've published was an extended criticism of the President's stated position on judicial nominations. I happen to disagree with his legal analysis on other issues. Indeed, I likely disagree with him more often than you agree with him -- does that mean that you think that his critics are "perfect"? What a weird rant.
I've made one small point in this thread started by Professor Glazier's short and fair post, and I stand by it. Yet even the slightest bit of contrarian thought sent you off the ledge. ("So traitors like me who 'rush to judgment' should shut up and wait to be told what the facts are - I am too un-informed to draw my own conclusions. *** Phil Carter put his body where his mouth is. You haven't. If you are a patriot and you believe this war is worth the lives of our children, sign up. If not, STFU.")
Your comment definitely put the "dump" in "Intel Dump." But where's the "intel"?
Fair point. But even accepting the premise of your criticsm, I'm not sure how making the same error in the other political direction fixes anything. I think that Andrew Cochran got it right, over at the CounterTerrorism Blog: "[F]or God's sake, let's not turn this NIE into another partisan political battle over intelligence."
What a weird rant? Name one foreign policy decision that you think Bush screwed up - and no, the decision to put Fred Nobodyheardofhim as Ambassador to Nowhereistan doesn't count. I am talking about the major issues of the day: 1) were we right to invade Iraq? 2) Was the planning done properly? 3) should Rumsfeld remain as SecDef? 4) torture memo? that kind of stuff.
Or you could answer the question: Leaving aside this leaked report from every intelligence agency in our government that says invading Iraq increased terrorism, do YOU think it increased terrorism, decreased it, or left it about the same?
Your one small point was "why the rush to cherry-pick evidence out of the NIE before we can see the whole field?" My response was based upon the fact that we have been sitting in the "whole field" getting shot at for three and a half years with nothing but death and destruction to show for it. You say reserve judgment. Hmmmm. Wonder why I said STFU? If that offended you, my apologies. Now answer the questions and quit nitpicking minutiae when people are dying.
Gamesmanship and partisanship is killing people. I am very fed up with such nonsense while blood is being spilled. Adam is not, though. He thinks things are going exactly as planned.
Apparently, it is only partisan to agree with the report.
I posted a quick thought on Professor Glazier's post, and I'm happy to engage in debate, as I did in my response to "sheerahkahn". But just posting a couple of thoughts doesn't mean that I'm going to sit down and start answering all of your rambling questions. Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense. (Indeed, it's not even an intelligible sentence.) You asked me whether President Bush "screwed up," yet you list things that President Bush didn't even do, like "torture memo". (Did he screw up the torture memo? I thought the OLC wrote that one.)
And I'll be honest: I've never heard of Fred Nobodyheardofhim, and I couldn't point to Nowhereistan
I threw my hands up in disgust and walked away from the site when it became clear that you're an angry, explosive imposter on a site dedicated to thoughtful analysis, and that you succeed in dragging down the tone of the debate at every opportunity.
I'm quite eager to stay engaged with sensible posts lie Professor's Glazier's, but I'm not going to humor you when you fly off the handle at even the slightest hint of disagreement. Just because you want desperately to embarass yourself doesn't mean that I'm going to go out of my way to help you accomplish that goal.
ID readers, I'm quite sorry that I've helped JD derail Professor Glazier's post's discussion. The fact is, JD hates my guts, and anything I post in this space is going to receive his full-throated rage in response, usually on topics wholly removed from the point of the post. I'm sorry to say that that even the smallest point made by me turns into my following JD as he tries to bait me into completely unrelated topics, like whether I think President Bush is "perfect," or whether I should or should not "shut the f*ck up".
It didn't offend me in the slightest, incidentally. I just feel bad for you. You seem unhinged when you fly off the handle like that.
As for your follow-up: We don't actually know what the NIE says in any sort of substantially complete context. Context counts. I'm particularly surprised that you're in a rush to take the selected excerpts as indicating what the NIE says in its totality, when a major criticism of the Iraq War was that the Bush Administration cherry-picked certain intelligence items and left to the side other information. But your point doesn't seem to be the thoughtful pursuit of factual information so much as an eagerness to criticize President Bush.
If people cherry-picked the Iraq-is-helping-the-war-on-terror information and selectively released that, then that, too, would be political. And I suspect that you'd criticize it.
It's the same game. The people who are (or see their side as) damaged by this incredible summary of the report are once again appealing to the nation not to "politicize" it, or use it for partisan reasons.
They haven't got the talking points distrubuted just yet so for now it's another re-run of attack the messenger and ignore the message. Anyone who calls attention to this NIE is a clear partisan and damages our National Security.
Call your Senators, call your Representatives - let's release the full (even if redacted) report so we can judge for ourselves as informed citizens.
JD didn't ask you to shut the fuck up. He asked you to sign up. He also stated that if you weren't prepared to sign up and risk an arm, a leg, an eye, your lower limbs, a head shot, or torture--from who knows whom these days?
Are you planning on signing up? Or are you already signed up?
You and Diogenes are trolls. You're trying not to be, yet you can't help it, because you two are still trolls.
Have you ever spoken to each other at this website?
JD:
The thing they most fear being ignored by those admire. Ask a simple question: Why do Diogenes and Adam post comments at a site where everyone else knows each other, says hello...
Ach, they're dying, those children, those days of hope and plenty. You seem to think that's perfectly okay because otherwise we'd get something worse.
President Bush has already promised the American public a war across the generations. That's your children, and their children's children.
Basically, JD, they want to interupt the conversation before everyone starts agreeing with you.
But why? BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG!
And they can't bear you being wrong and not having someone shout at you for it.
The best way to deal with someone who is going far wrong, is to be kind and gentle; considerate and undertanding; canny; fast; centred.
President Bush appears centred. He doesn't appear to take tranquilisers, stimulants, or any other drug. Perhaps he drinks a cup of coffee. Perhaps he is a walking chemist's shop.
I recommend you all learn the game Go. There was a quote about it, an American general I think.
"We're playing chess, but the enemy are playing Go."
Adam and Diogenes are not playing Go.
Now, leaving aside this leaked report from every intelligence agency in our government that says invading Iraq increased terrorism, do YOU think it increased terrorism, decreased it, or left it about the same?
And, if you support the war, why haven't you joined the military? They are hurting for recruits. Are you planning on signing up?
I'm simply not going to humor you. Your weird eagerness to rant at me ("Ahh, Adam returns.") is tiresome. Just because I enjoy reading the other main contributors to the site doesn't mean I'm going to pay attention to you.
I intended to delete the whole thing, so as to not resurrect that bizarre experience, but having failed to erase the entire line, I might as well explain the seemingly misplaced parenthetical. Sheesh, the odd tangents you drag me off on when I come to make a single, quick comment to Professor Glazier's post.
By the way, why delete our past exchanges? Do you work for the Fox News transcript team? Have you ever read Orwell's 1984?
For example, you approved of my civil rights being violated without waiting to hear the other side of the story. That was always kind of curious to me because the other side has so much history and legal precedent on its side that you could not have begun to wade through all of that material. No, you, as a partisan, accept the John Yoo/George Bush theory of the unitarian president and you don't need to examine the other side whatsoever. A U.S. district court judge says "no way." Adam says, "she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's a dumb shit and I know better, me, with all my vast knowledge of constitutional law." Anything for the team, eh?
In this case, what you're doing is a rear-guard action. Anything to slow down the train. If you knew how the intelligence business worked, you'd already know that you've seen the sweet spot, the headliner. That's how leaks work. Do you think the entire report is going to somehow refute what we've already seen? Give these a little more credit. They know how to leak.
rg has you figured out. What you are is a partisan, bound and determined to defend your team at all costs. Admit it and you'll feel better.
It is likely that reason was political, since the report appears to directly contradicts what the President has been claiming in public statements. For the last few weeks, he has repeatedly claimed that we are safer than we were prior to 911 and that invading Iraq made us safer.
Since most of those statements were made campaigning for Republicans, it is impossible to a have a discussion of the report that is not partisan. The President has made the war on terror and the war in Iraq partisan issues. No one can put that genie back in the bottle.
The fact is the report only tells us about the conclusions the intelligence agencies have drawn from the information they have, not the information they don't have. Unfortunately that's the way the world works. That we can't discuss the parts of the report which we aren't aware of goes without saying. However that is no excuse for not considering the information we do have.
I am quite sure that the entire intelligence apparatus of the United States does not lack people schooled in these distinctions.
As I pointed out, the American public votes in November -
and that is actually the last chance they have to influence
Bush's policy in Iraq. So there isn't any option of
waiting for "full information" - and in any case you seem
to suggest that the public should *never* get the full
information. So your position is self-contradictory and
stupid - let's withhold judgment until a) we get information
we're probably never going to get and b) it's too late to
do anything about it. If that's all you've got left, don't
be surprised that people don't respond kindly to your
comment. It's getting the derision it deserves.
We wouldn't want to jump to conclusions.
Except, of course, when it comes to Iran...
First off, I'll take that concession and move on.
There will be a partisan battle, you know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it. This political, and that is what it will be, a political battle will be nasty, brutal, and the last thing the Republicans will want to occur. The very reason being that the information in the NIE is not pretty, nor flattering to the ambitions of the White House Foriegn policy.
In fact, it's going to give Rove fits.
However, the Democrats are in the mud with the Republicans, and this is where they will have to be very deft in order to ensure that they don't end up looking like fools (The old saying, never argue with a fool, people will not be able to tell the difference). How they'll pull it off is a mystery to me, but right now their silence is deafening and is not encouraging me one bit.
Coming after I referenced fascism here, followed days later by VP Cheney's comments here, I am beginning to wonder if Adam reports directly to the Prince of Darkn.. - sorry, to Mr. Cheney.
1984? No. 1944. "Defeatists." Sheesh. November might be our self-governing republic's last chance. I am beginning to think that I might actually hear that knock on the door in the middle of the night by Homeland Security........
I think the current Democratic strategy is just to run
down the clock - they're 10-15 points up in the generic
Congressional ballot, almost all the news from Iraq is bad,
Bob Ney and Tom DeLay are in big legal trouble, Sen Allen's
macaca/just-found-out-I'm-Jewish/deer's-head debacle is
showing what it takes to be considered presidential
material in today's GOP, and seniors are hitting the
donut hole in their Medicare drug coverage. Why get in
the way when the other side is imploding ?
There's some sense to this - especially in midterms when
you don't have a presidential candidate to put forward a
program. But I'll agree with you that it makes me nervous.
We *have* to win this one - even after all the dirty tricks
that might be played with voting machines.
That always seems to be the strategy and they always wake up on election day wondering what hit them.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this line: "you approved of my civil rights being violated without waiting to hear the other side of the story." I don't get it.
"No, you, as a partisan, accept the John Yoo/George Bush theory of the unitarian president and you don't need to examine the other side whatsoever."
That's actually quite untrue. I've studied quite a lot of law -- cases, articles, books, and the like -- and I think I've examined and debated these issues from a variety of angles. My take on the issue certainly didn't come from reading a few selected excerpts in a newspaper.
The federal judge's opinion, then, was so shockingly awful in my opinion not because it came out the other way -- I would have disagreed, but it's a legal issue on which reasonable minds can ultimately disagree -- but because it was so shockingly bad. It included such demonstrably false howlers as "[the Fourth Amendment requires] also requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause". That line alone clues you in to the fact that this judge is making it up as she goes along.
But that is my favorite part about legal debate: Anyone can participate intelligently. More often than not, the cases, the briefs, and a good deal of analysis is available for free, on the Internet. Anyone can study up and come to an informed conclusion.
"Adam says, 'she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's a dumb shit and I know better, me, with all my vast knowledge of constitutional law.'" I never said anything close to that. My mode of argument has never been "if you don't have [insert credential], then you should shut up."
"You're not a frequent poster here. It seems the only times you show up are when you find your team in trouble."
That's a function of this site, not of my "team". Given that JD has been the only regular poster for a while, my comments will always be in response to his. And he tends to write on issues on which he disagrees with the Bush Administration's legal position, while I agree with it. On my own main-page posts, I can't remember what I wrote about anymore. I think that I had roughly four or five posts. One just flagged the burgeoning argument by Perry et al. re North Korea. One or two discussed historical analogies between past and current presidents. One was on the legal status of the Iraq no-fly zones. The other couple were, I suspect, in favor of a legal position espoused by the Bush Administration, but considering that they were probably in the news at the time, I don't see why writing about them is anything untoward.
I do wish that not every thread I entered ended up with me having to answer questions about my record as a writer. I wish that you all weren't in such a hurry to personalize things.
But, again, wasn't the criticism of the pre-Iraq-War intelligene that over time it became clear that initial revelations were in fact not representative of the findings of the intelligence community as a whole? I mean, I'd disagree with that characterization, but it seems to be the conventional wisdom among many of the President's critics. Are you suggesting that pre-war intelligence disclosures were in fact representative of the sum of the information available? If not, then you're refuting your own point that early leaks are representative of the whole of the underlying report.
"So your position is self-contradictory and
stupid - let's withhold judgment until a) we get information
we're probably never going to get and b) it's too late to
do anything about it."
Hardly. My position is that today it's rash to rush to judgment based on a small sample of selected excerpts, and that it's more prudent and sound to await further disclosure of information. True, on Election Day you may have to make a decision with the best information available. But today's not Election Day. So why the rush to judgment today?
On the other hand Adam, I cannot agree with you that we should ignore the NIE extract until the entire report is declassified. As mentioned above that may never happen. Will you write your congressman &senator and ask them to press for declassification? Although your point about cherrypicking evidence is a good one, I believe that point is more apropos to official cherrypicking by the administration, any administration in my view, but especially by this one.
The Fourth Amendment:
Yeah, what the heck was that judge thinking?
Adam, this is the sixth year of the Bush presidency, we are in the fourth year of the war in Iraq, and it has been over five years since 9/11. Rush to judgment? I think not.
But I guess the judge's opinion pointing out that Bush's claims of inherent authority to violate the law and Constitution, or that the AUMF allowed him carte blanche, was what Adam found so "shockingly bad."
You don't get it, Adam? By aligning yourself uncritically with the Bush Administration, you are supporting their theory that my private electronic communications may be read by anyone in the government without a warrant. You are doing this despite our Constitution and established law, but just like them, you don't care. By aligning yourself with the Bush Administration, you also apparently agree that persons who are not heterosexual do not deserve the same rights as other Americans. By aligning yourself with the Bush Administration, you also apparently agree that certain persons held by the U.S. do not deserve the protections afforded by our courts and by the Geneva Conventions, thus giving great insight into your view of human rights.
You get it now? I know you will protest mightily here, but I suggest you give some thought to how it looks from the cheap seats: Adam working hard for white shoes.
According to William Safire, the phrase derives from "white bucks", a type of laced suede or buckskin shoe with a red sole, long popular among upper-class New Englanders, especially at Ivy League colleges.
I wish there was some way to talk to you Adam, but just can't imagine how it would be possible: you're simply too dishonest, like the Republican gangsters you support.
As for JD, I've had some pretty heated exchanges with him myself, but he does NOT strike me as a hateful person at all.
I had hoped to be able to blog more regularly when Phil asked me to be part of his deployment coverage team and I sincerely regret that I underestimated the time challenges of the job hunt, move arrangements, child care challenges in a new city, etc. The new job is awesome - very, very different but in many ways just as rewarding as my last real job - command at sea, so I'm infinitely lucky to have had two such opportunities in one lifetime.
The lawyers among you will appreciate the challenge I face next week explaining Estates and Future Interests and the Rule Against Perpetuities to 91 1Ls -- actually my biggest challenge may be that first I have to truly understand that stuff myself! So I'm afraid I won't be doing too much additional posting right now. I'm really looking forward to the Spring semester when I'll resume teaching something much simpler by comparison (or at least that I know better) -- the law of war!
My best to all readers! Dave Glazier
Reading the link one comes across the usual (under Cheney/Bush) propagandistic element to the NIE - "the ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq" - so I doubt if the announced release of the entire report will change much. The followers of Bush will always be able to pick out their little self-serving nuggets to make their case.
Reading between the lines it is apparant that many in the intelligence services see this as a disaster, which it obviously is. Still the followers will demand that the words "disaster" magically appear tattooed on their foreheads before they will be willing to second guess their "decisive leader", so be it.
For the rest of us, we need only recall the various open letters signed by scores of former UK and US officials issued publically over the last few years to denounce not only Bush's war, but his general policy in the Middle East. . .
My personal favorite is that issued by more than 50 former British ambassadors to Tony Blair in April 2004 . . .
The followers of Bush always forget about these flashing red lights, or rather solid concrete barriers, they decided to run through, but we in the real world won't.
In general it is clear that not only Bush's war in Iraq, but the infamous "Bush Doctrine" in general (a doctrine based on a stratagem believe it or not!) is a total disaster as is the overall Cheney/Bush/Likud policy in the Middle East. . .
We've had the argument over why I (and Orin Kerr, and Jack Balkin, and plenty of others) thought that the opinion was laughable whether or not the critic agrees with the outcome of the case. But there's really no need to re-hash all of that. (Of course, you can re-hash it if you want -- I'm not one to tell someone to, say, "shut the f**k up"!)
Is that enough context? Again, she says that warrants are required for all searches. The "Fourth Amendment" section of her opinion doesn't discuss the exceptions to the warrant requirement; indeed, her discussion at the end of that section only says that Congress allowed for the "delay[]" of warrants, but she did not say that outright elimination of the warrant requirement was required.
JD believes that it doesn't matter how flawed her opinion's discussion is, so long as it arrives at what he deems to be the right outcome. I disagree -- I think that an opinion wrought with flawed analysis is a disappointment to our judicial system. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Yes. And the dangerous part of the administration's predictable insistence that it isn't true is that they will convince themselves that is the case. Because we will not end the threat of terror by these methods. We will fall into bin Laden's and his successors' traps over and over again. Insisting, when we are at the bottom of the pit we fell into, that this is exactly where we intended to be. It would be comic if there weren't so many lives destroyed.
A warrant does not a reason make. A warrant is the end action of a reasonable request for further disclosure of fact, which oddly enough is what a warrant accomplishes.
"and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either."
You are a lawyer right?
A warrant is required when the facts are not discoverable through inital inquiry, or empirical observation. Probale cause is based on circumstantial belief...ie, no matter how tenuous at best, but still reasonable enough to grant actionable interest into discovery of fact.
Hence, if the government has "probable cause" to investigate a certain individual based on the most tenuous of circumstantial belief, then a warrant can be obtained to further discovery. Ergo, a warrant is easily obtainable.
The Governments position is that they don't need no "stinking" warrant, because they're the government. Bush's admininstration has been clear from the get-go: The Constitution, civil liberties, all be damned, period, end of discussion.