[fluff]

Does anyone still believe otherwise?

Pinko liberal link alert, NSFF (not safe for frothers):
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html

Sevenfold apparently...

 

[syadasti]

This isn't exactly news Bush Sr. knew this the first time around and didn't occupy for this and other reasons:

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 instantly have 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, would have 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 perhaps barren — outcome.

Israel also agrees - a huge mistake:

TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq (news - web sites) did not damage international terror groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.

 

[JohnE]

The trail of contradictions between Bush Sr. and Shrub is amazing. Bush Sr was actually fairly smart about things, while Shrub is, well, a dipsh*t first class.

 

[VTApe]

Does anyone think all of this seemingly new found knowledge about how pointless this whole war is will mean a sooner homecoming for our troops?

 

[N8 v2.0]

i like pizza

 

[LordOpie]

Does anyone think all of this seemingly new found knowledge about how pointless this whole war is will mean a sooner homecoming for our troops?

nope.

They have to stay until we win and we can't win until someone defines victory.

 

[syadasti]

nope.

They have to stay until we win and we can't win until someone defines victory.

Thats great because Bush declared victory 4 years ago on the USS Abraham Lincoln

"Mission Accomplished"

 

[$tinkle]

so let's make this something we can project in our personal lives, taking a notable example of "the occupation".

if we were "invaded", as the left likes to say, we would indeed take up arms against the crusaders. take note of that sentence before i go back to clear up a fallacy: it implies choice - OUR choice.

about that fallacy: it is not proper to equate the actual invasion & occupation of iraq by western forces to the hypothetical invasion & occupation of the u.s., for as much as you may seethe at dubya, you have freedoms (i know you hate that word) beyond compare.

yes, i have set up a strawman in the hopes anyone here who ever was persuaded by some NPR talking head can see just how silly that position is. down at the local level & up to the arab media, they are being whipped into a froth against western interests, not stopping so much to come up for a breath to think for a second that maybe - just maybe - not all cultures are equal.

you think it's in the world's best interest to maintain status quo for a large number of the population who treats women, homosexuals, and non-muslims as 3rd class citizens? and you think the u.s. exploits foreign workers?

miles to go before we sleep...

 

[fluff]

so let's make this something we can project in our personal lives, taking a notable example of "the occupation".

if we were "invaded", as the left likes to say, we would indeed take up arms against the crusaders. take note of that sentence before i go back to clear up a fallacy: it implies choice - OUR choice.

What choice are you refering to?

about that fallacy: it is not proper to equate the actual invasion & occupation of iraq by western forces to the hypothetical invasion & occupation of the u.s., for as much as you may seethe at dubya, you have freedoms (i know you hate that word) beyond compare.

What you have done there is combine two separate issues. The level of freedom that you perceive you have (and it is not beyond compare) has nothing to do with invasion and occupancy from the perspectove of those invaded and occupied. Having never lived in a country that has been occupied your frame of reference is ineffective.

yes, i have set up a strawman in the hopes anyone here who ever was persuaded by some NPR talking head can see just how silly that position is. down at the local level & up to the arab media, they are being whipped into a froth against western interests, not stopping so much to come up for a breath to think for a second that maybe - just maybe - not all cultures are equal.

Your judgement of the values of different cultures is not universal and nor does it have anything to do with the Arab perspective on the situation in Iraq. If Western interests run counter to Arab interests do you expect them to submit? And do you expect all Westerners to put Western interests (which may not be in my best interest btw) above the lives of fellow human beings?

you think it's in the world's best interest to maintain status quo for a large number of the population who treats women, homosexuals, and non-muslims as 3rd class citizens? and you think the u.s. exploits foreign workers?

miles to go before we sleep...

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia, a far more repressive regime than Iraq under Saddam?

And yes, the US does exploit foreign workers, and domestic ones come to that.

 

[ohio]

Does anyone think all of this seemingly new found knowledge about how pointless this whole war is will mean a sooner homecoming for our troops?

Yes. Depending on the results of some good military strategic research, we may realize that this is now a perpetual war, finally abandon any idea of victory, realize that we're better off leaving the country to civil war, and evacuate a la Vietnam.

Not saying that's what the research will show, but actually accepting that we are breeding terrorists certainly has implications for our policy.

 

[bac]

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia, a far more repressive regime than Iraq under Saddam?

You mean the country of 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists? Nah, we're good with them. We'll even hold their hand. Awe, how sweet.

 

[ohio]

You mean the country of 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists? Nah, we're good with them. We'll even hold their hand. Awe, how sweet.

Heh, W is teh gay with an Ay-rab.

 

[$tinkle]

Are you talking about Saudi Arabia, a far more repressive regime than Iraq under Saddam?

And yes, the US does exploit foreign workers, and domestic ones come to that.

actually, yes, s.a. did come to mind. tell me, what do you believe is the root cause for such a repressive, long-lived, prolific regime such as the house of saud? nationalism? familialism? feudalism? or some other 'ism'?

good friend of my wife works 6 mos out of the year in s.a. (engineering in oil industry, of course) & is much, much, much more qualified than the people above him in the org chart. one of the rules is that no non-muslim (note this is NOT merely put in terms of a foreign worker) may hold rank above a muslim, nor may be compensated above a muslim. this is not just some company policy, it is policy of the entire kingdom.

other "features" of the kingdom have been previously covered.

to acknowledge that this culture (which just so happens to run the country) is different, but not dare say it is beneath western values is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. just in case that was your opinion (you weren't clear enough for me to tell).

 

[fluff]

actually, yes, s.a. did come to mind. tell me, what do you believe is the root cause for such a repressive, long-lived, prolific regime such as the house of saud? nationalism? familialism? feudalism? or some other 'ism'?

Root cause? Tricky. A regime born of force and coercion that embraced an extreme interpretation of Islam to cow the population. It also was born during the time of the Ottoman empire which was hardly a paragon of freedom and progression. It has survived due to repression rather than because of it. Whether we could call it a culture in national terms is debatable, but certainly there is a core that wishes to maintain the status quo for their own benefit.

good friend of my wife works 6 mos out of the year in s.a. (engineering in oil industry, of course) & is much, much, much more qualified than the people above him in the org chart. one of the rules is that no non-muslim (note this is NOT merely put in terms of a foreign worker) may hold rank above a muslim, nor may be compensated above a muslim. this is not just some company policy, it is policy of the entire kingdom.

other "features" of the kingdom have been previously covered.

The Saudi regime is without a doubt extremely prejudiced and indeed this is enshrined within law.

to acknowledge that this culture (which just so happens to run the country) is different, but not dare say it is beneath western values is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. just in case that was your opinion (you weren't clear enough for me to tell).

My personal opinion would be that our culture is superior but, as it would be for you to say the same, my judgement is subjective and arguably arbitrary. In order to make any kind of objective judgement we must first agree on the desirable properties of an abstract culture, which may not be as easy as it seems.

For example I would see the following as desirable (the list is high-level, not exhaustive, and nor is it in any particular order):

Freedom of expression
Freedom of movement
State-funded education for all
State-funded medical care for all
An independent judicial system
An elected legislature
Welfare assistance for the poor/unemployed
Regulation of working practices
A non-aggressive foreign policy
Idependent and free media
Regulation against monopolies & cartels (& price-fixing)
Freedom of religious belief
Low rate of crime
Progressive taxation

Your list may be quite different. Once the different aspects are weighted it would differ further. But supposing that we could come to an agreement, then we could compare and rate cultures (but stilll only against a standard that has been agreed by two people; hardly universal). Two people from an Islamic background may not come up with the same values and why should our values have any greater intrinsic value than theirs?

 

[luelling]

nope.

They have to stay until we win and we can't win until someone defines victory.

We could go out like the Brits and say "We win" and then leave. I honestly don't think we can win in any context. They seem hell bent on killing each other. It seems the best thing that could happen is pulling to the borders and containing the ensuing violence to keep the entire middle east from falling into war.

 

[luelling]

one of the rules is that no non-muslim (note this is NOT merely put in terms of a foreign worker) may hold rank above a muslim, nor may be compensated above a muslim. this is not just some company policy, it is policy of the entire kingdom.

I'd convert for better pay

 

[rockwool]

actually, yes, s.a. did come to mind. tell me, what do you believe is the root cause for such a repressive, long-lived, prolific regime such as the house of saud? nationalism? familialism? feudalism? or some other 'ism'?

Americanism? No seriously, at the end of WWII there was an agreement between the royal family of SA and the US. They promised to supply the US as long as they kept them in power. A symbiosis of the finer sort...

 

[Changleen]

You might like this:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC02Ak01.html

AL-QAEDA'S RESURGENCE, Part 1
Ready to take on the world
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - Al-Qaeda will this year significantly step up its global operations after centralizing its leadership and reviving its financial lifelines. Crucially, al-Qaeda has developed missile and rocket technology with the capability of carrying chemical, biological and nuclear warheads, according to an al-Qaeda insider who spoke to Asia Times Online.

While al-Qaeda will continue to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will broaden its global perspective to include Europe and hostile

Muslim states, Asia Times Online has learned. For the first time since its attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, this could be al-Qaeda's year on the offensive.

According to the contact, "The time has come for a message to be communicated to Europe." Asked what kind of message this would be, the contact simply smiled.

Nevertheless, he stated that with Western forces trapped in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was time to open up new fronts in Somalia, Algeria, Egypt, Palestine and other places.

"In each place, al-Qaeda has its own command and control apparatus, including Palestine, and all those fronts will be opened up very soon," the contact said.

At the same time al-Qaeda is planning this offensive, it has received something of a setback in Afghanistan, where its alliance with the Taliban is under strain. The Taliban have struck a deal with Pakistan over mutual cooperation, which is anathema to al-Qaeda (see Pakistan makes a deal with the Taliban, Asia Times Online, March 1).

Osama in the shadows
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has not appeared in a video since October 2004 or on an audio tape since January 2006. He is by no means out of the al-Qaeda picture, although his deputy, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, claims the media spotlight.

Reportedly recovered from ill health, bin Laden - possibly even sporting a trimmed beard - is active in al-Qaeda's planning, according to the contact Asia Times Online spoke to. "He could be in Chechnya, Somalia or Iraq," the man said coyly, obviously not about to divulge bin Laden's whereabouts. Or even in Iran, some insiders hint.

Over the course of many hours of conversation and information exchanges in several locations, the contact - who has a sound track record of being informed of developments within al-Qaeda - explained how bin Laden and Zawahiri had rebuilt al-Qaeda over the past year or so.

Since 2005, the al-Qaeda leadership had been talking to many groups, including Egyptians, Libyans and the takfiri camp (which calls all non-practicing Muslims infidels). Al-Qaeda paid for differences in tactics and ideology among these groups as its structure unraveled and the organization developed into an "ideology" rather than a cohesive group.

As a result, al-Qaeda's global agenda was largely shelved and the international community's financial squeeze definitely hurt. This problem has been overcome, according to the contact, although he would not give any details. Even US intelligence agencies concede that the group's finances have improved, but they have no idea how. All the same, they have pressured Pakistan to clamp down on some charitable organizations in that country.

The Jamiatul Muqatila (Libyan) led by Sheikh Abu Lais al-Libby, the Jabhatul Birra of Ibn-i-Malik, also Libyan, the Jaishul Mehdi, founded by slain Abdul Rahman Canady, an Egyptian, and now led by Abu Eza, the Jamaatul Jihad, an unnamed Libyan group once led by Sheikh Abu Nasir Qahtani from Kuwaiti, who has now been arrested, and the takfiris under Sheikh Essa, an Egyptian, have once again joined forces with "Jamaat al-Qaeda" under the leadership of bin Laden.

The contact insisted that since two major tasks - regrouping and finances - had been completed, major operations could now be planned. But in addition to this, to ensure that 2007 would be "the year of al-Qaeda", a "great compromise" had to be made.

Deal with the devil
Before the "Mother of all Battles", the Gulf War of 1991, bin Laden offered to help the Saudi monarchy fight Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait. The Saudi royalty ignored the offer and opted instead for US military assistance. The presence of these troops in the land of the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina inflamed bin Laden, and he split with the Saudi royalty.

Nevertheless, the growing influence of Shi'ite Iran in the Middle East, especially in Iraq after the US invasion of 2003 and Lebanon, concerned al-Qaeda and the anti-Shi'ite Salafi Saudi oligarchs, which included the royal family, scholars, tribes and the state apparatus.

In this environment, a speech by bin Laden was aired on Al-Jazeera television in which he called the Saudi monarchy extremely corrupt, the most contemptuous aspect of which was its alliance with US interests. Having said that, he asked the Saudi monarchy to step aside, saying that the mujahideen did not at that stage want to confront it. Rather, the Saudis should leave al-Qaeda alone to fight against Americans in Iraq.

The speech was, in fact, the beginning of dialogue between al-Qaeda and the Saudi royal family through various Muslim scholars at numerous places in the Middle East. Eventually, the Saudis agreed to turn a blind eye to Maaskar al-Battar (al-Qaeda's training camp) in Saudi Arabia on condition that the fighters would not carry out any operations in Saudi Arabia and go straight to Iraq.

The contact Asia Times Online spoke to said that al-Qaeda is so powerful in Saudi Arabia that the monarchy had no choice but to strike a deal. Similarly, it was al-Qaeda's choice, he said, that it concentrate this year on Iraq.

The way that al-Qaeda sees it, it will consolidate in Iraq to the extent that it and the "coalition of the willing" have their respective and identified occupied areas from which to fight each other.

The Saudi front is thus only deferred until al-Qaeda gains sufficient ground in Iraq.

The "arrangement" between al-Qaeda and the Saudis reveals a diplomatic double-step by Saudi Arabia, which Washington considers an important ally in the "war on terror" and in helping establish a Sunni front against rising Shi'ite power in the region, led by Iran.

Preparing for war
Al-Qaeda uses Maaskar al-Battar in Saudi Arabia to train youths in guerrilla warfare, including the use of SA-7 surface-to-air missiles. Research is also conducted at the camp, as well as in Afghanistan.

This includes work on "Abeer" rockets to carry nuclear or chemical weapons. Last October, the insurgent group Islamic Army in Iraq claimed to have successfully built and tested a rocket with a range of 120 kilometers. It was named Abeer after the 14-year-old Iraqi girl raped and killed by a US soldier who last month received a jail sentence of 100 years.

In video footage released online, the group said the Abeer rocket could carry a payload of 20 kilograms. Iraqi engineers linked to resistance groups are now developing Abeer rockets with upgraded accuracy and payload capabilities.

According to the Asia Times Online contact, basic work on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons has now been completed and the main task now is to mount them on suitable missiles - which it is hoped the upgraded Abeer now is.

In the meantime, the Maaskar al-Battar camp is preparing to send an additional 10,000 trained youths into Iraq by the middle of the year.

This coincides with al-Qaeda organizing all segments of the Iraqi resistance under its umbrella. It has already declared an "Emir of the Islamic Emirates of Iraq" comprising Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din and Ninawa, and in other parts of the governorate of Babel. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi has been declared the emir of the state.

This development signifies that in the coming months, al-Qaeda's epicenter will shift from the Pakistani tribal areas of South Waziristan and North Waziristan to Iraq and its neighborhood, including parts of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.

It also means that the almost-independent "al-Qaeda in Iraq", once headed by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed by the US, will not function as an entity.

Although many Arab fighters left Afghanistan and Pakistan after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to join hands with the Iraqi resistance, others are now following. These include al-Qaeda's Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, who moved from Waziristan.

This will further weaken the link between al-Qaeda and the Taliban after the latter's decision to strike a deal with Pakistan. According to al-Qaeda sources, it is only a matter of time before the entire al-Qaeda leadership abandons its bases in the Pakistani tribal areas and moves to the Middle East.

Something holding them back at present is a logistical matter. Previously, Iran allowed al-Qaeda members to pass through its territory on the way to Iraq or other places. But in the wake of the sectarian troubles in Iraq, Tehran is somewhat hostile toward al-Qaeda.

So it remains unclear whether Iran will facilitate al-Qaeda entering Iraq and destabilizing a Shi'ite government that is pro-American, but certainly also friendly with Iran.

TOMORROW: A new home in Iraq

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com.

 

[rockwool]

You might like this:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC02Ak01.html

You got to give it to the US, they sure have succeded in creating an opponent to fill the gap of the Warsaw Pact. Little foolish me though the 90's and the new century was going to be the era of demilitarization, in lack of an enemy..

Things sure are going to escalate, the arab muslims and other parts of the world are either waking up or have come a pretty long way in their resistance against the Empire.

But with this aritcle it's hard to know which of it is true and sanctioned by the Al-Qaeda, which of it is purposefully put there by the Al-Qaeda that over exagerates their capacity, and wheter it all has been planted by the other side as has continuosly been the case in Venezuela, or lately with the story of Iranian arms supply of the Iraqi resistance, and many times before.

I mean, in what ways can it benefit Al-Qaeda to reveal their pokerhand? Is it a for of propaganda from their side to fuel those that are not yet commited to the struggle and haven't still desided what way to go?

I also have trubble understanding why the royal family of SA in alowing an Al-Qaeda base on their land, meaning the "Saudi front is thus only deferred until al-Qaeda gains sufficient ground in Iraq". They are the Empires satellite in that region, they have all to lose from an uprising against them who uphold their power.

Then there's the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, where did they get them from? Is it the same stuff the US sold to Saddam Hussein and now has been resurected?
I sure welcome the uprising, but I wish that this last crap isn't true.

 

[rockwool]

I'd convert for better pay

That's why there are muslims in Bosnia, they converted during Ottoman rule so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes.