Intelligence Analysts Say War Spread Terrorism

What is the current course? What are the objectives of the current mission? It seems to me that this would have to be defined before an immediate and total withdrawl could be seen as a 'cut and run'. An immediate and total withdrawl could just as easily be seen as a militarily necessary tactical retreat if the objectives of the mission are no longer attainable.

The bigger question is this. The operation in Iraq is tactical... and it serves what strategy?

by the way, AAA... nice job of remaining calm in the face of Z's verbal abuse. I noticed you responded (in disagreement) to one of its posts in a thoughtful and honest manner and the response to you was 'IDIOT'.

You have more patience with the child than I do.

_____________________________

Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

iustus ignarus troll

 

Iraq's peace can be won, but not by u guys... nobody's gonna lend a toe to let u get away with any ounce of credit, cause u just don't deserve any... enjoy their oil while u can, i guess thats blood money for all the body bags past, present and to come...

thought Vietnam wld've taught u a few things... obviously not...

 

Terror analysis fuels Iraq war debate

A separate high-level assessment focused solely on Iraq may be coming soon.

 

Excuse me, but anyone with more than an ounce of sense knows that the person who got "caught with his pants down" was interviewed on fox news by chris wallace last weekend.

 

I guess we can enjoy our oil if you can enjoy your journey into sharia law. Would have thought that nazi and communist aggression would have taught you something ...obviously not...

 

Eight years of getting hit around the world and yet having our "leader" only interested in keeping his pants down is not a great record.

 

You're an idiot. Around here that's saying much.

 

In his Fox interview, Mr. Clinton said “no one knew that al Qaeda existed” in October 1993, during the tragic events in Somalia. But his national security adviser, Tony Lake, told me that he first learned of bin Laden “sometime in 1993,” when he was thought of as a terror financier. U.S. Army Capt. James Francis Yacone, a black hawk squadron commander in Somalia, later testified that radio intercepts of enemy mortar crews firing at Americans were in Arabic, not Somali, suggesting the work of bin Laden’s agents (who spoke Arabic), not warlord Farah Aideed’s men (who did not). CIA and DIA reports also placed al Qaeda operatives in Somalia at the time.

By the end of Mr. Clinton’s first year, al Qaeda had apparently attacked twice. The attacks would continue for every one of the Clinton years.

• In 1994, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who would later plan the 9/11 attacks) launched “Operation Bojinka” to down 11 U.S. planes simultaneously over the Pacific. A sharp-eyed Filipina police officer foiled the plot. The sole American response: increased law-enforcement cooperation with the Philippines.

• In 1995, al Qaeda detonated a 220-pound car bomb outside the Office of Program Manager in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five Americans and wounding 60 more. The FBI was sent in.

• In 1996, al Qaeda bombed the barracks of American pilots patrolling the “no-fly zones” over Iraq, killing 19. Again, the FBI responded.

• In 1997, al Qaeda consolidated its position in Afghanistan and bin Laden repeatedly declared war on the U.S. In February, bin Laden told an Arab TV network: “If someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters.” No response from the Clinton administration.

• In 1998, al Qaeda simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224, including 12 U.S. diplomats. Mr. Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan in response. Here Mr. Clinton’s critics are wrong: The president was right to retaliate when America was attacked, irrespective of the Monica Lewinsky case.

Still, “Operation Infinite Reach” was weakened by Clintonian compromise. The State Department feared that Pakistan might spot the American missiles in its air space and misinterpret it as an Indian attack. So Mr. Clinton told Gen. Joe Ralston, vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, to notify Pakistan’s army minutes before the Tomahawks passed over Pakistan. Given Pakistan’s links to jihadis at the time, it is not surprising that bin Laden was tipped off, fleeing some 45 minutes before the missiles arrived.

• In 1999, the Clinton administration disrupted al Qaeda’s Millennium plots, a series of bombings stretching from Amman to Los Angeles. This shining success was mostly the work of Richard Clarke, a NSC senior director who forced agencies to work together. But the Millennium approach was shortlived. Over Mr. Clarke’s objections, policy reverted to the status quo.

• In January 2000, al Qaeda tried and failed to attack the U.S.S. The Sullivans off Yemen. (Their boat sank before they could reach their target.) But in October 2000, an al Qaeda bomb ripped a hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and wounding another 39.

When Mr. Clarke presented a plan to launch a massive cruise missile strike on al Qaeda and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan, the Clinton cabinet voted against it. After the meeting, a State Department counterterrorism official, Michael Sheehan, sought out Mr. Clarke. Both told me that they were stunned. Mr. Sheehan asked Mr. Clarke: “What’s it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?”

There is much more to Mr. Clinton’s record–how Predator drones, which spotted bin Laden three times in 1999 and 2000, were grounded by bureaucratic infighting; how a petty dispute with an Arizona senator stopped the CIA from hiring more Arabic translators. While it is easy to look back in hindsight and blame Bill Clinton, the full scale and nature of the terrorist threat was not widely appreciated until 9/11. Still: Bill Clinton did not fully grasp that he was at war. Nor did he intuit that war requires overcoming bureaucratic objections and a democracy’s natural reluctance to use force. That is a hard lesson. But it is better to learn it from studying the Clinton years than reliving them.

Richard Miniter

 

Nik, really the objective was nothing more than remove Saddam (and the baathists) and install a constitution ensuring free elections that would give the majority Shia' a voice in Iraq.

Sounded great on paper. Naturally the administration figured the Shiites would LOVE being able to escape political oppression. Well they DO love freedom. Unfortunately freedom means being able to kill as many of their former oppressors as possible and create a sub Iranian state. In other words, probably the same course that would of happened eventually WITHOUT us speeding it along.
What puts the U.S. in a bind is that MANY Iraqi's want a constitutional government to succeed. Without U.S. troops "policing" the nation there's little hope of that occurring. People harp on how Iraq isn't a great breeding ground for democracy but nor was it a sectarian state either. The news reports the past few days have been mildly encouraging. There's a bona fide chance of Sunni leaders meeting with moderate Shiite clerics and getting a deal done.

As far as "strategy"? I haven't a clue. You were a bit dim on seeing where I was trying to go with the Hitler thing. People keep bringing up the holocaust but that had ZERO to do with America entering the war in Europe. (we didn't know about holocaust till the end of the war) No more than America is in Iraq to help the Kurds or anyone else. It's laughably ironic when we say we're fighting wars for freedom while interning American citizens of Japanese descent or designating American's as "foreign combatants." Our axe overseas is rarely dipped in justice or morality or even in common sense. IMO if the market hadn't been in free fall from 2000-2003 we wouldn't have entered Iraq and if the world had come quickly out of depression there would have been no WWll. Political leaders often find military solutions for economic problems that could lose elections. Happens everyday. Without a depression there's no chance that crackpots like Hitler, Churchill or FDR could have been even viable let alone electable in sophisticated nations like Germany, Britain and the United States.


I'm an isolationist because we've NEVER had great exit strategies/objectives. The unfair "peace" we brokered at the end of the first Great War caused the atrocities of the second. In WWll we did nothing but lose 5% of American males in their 20's so that the U.S.S.R. could dominate eastern Europe for the next half century. We also accomplished little in Korea or Viet Nam. Would you favor policemen in Toronto being deployed in New Orleans or Compton CA to help fight gang crime? Of course not. Why should nations be any different. Speak softly and carry a big stick is always a way to live.

 

Well said.