THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

...

I did not intend it as a personal derogation, I intended it as an explanation and as a 'root root' for education.
...
ps And I also intended it as a tip to Tarantulas himself...'get yourself educated on this'.

A retired army colonel commissioned by the Pentagon to examine the war in Afghanistan concluded the conflict created conditions that have given "warlordism, banditry and opium production a new lease on life," The New Yorker reported on Sunday.

[..] The Pentagon returned the report to Rothstein with a request he cut it drastically and soften his conclusions, the magazine reported.

The mission -- "Operation Vigilant Resolve" -- follows the killing of four U.S. private security guards in the town last week.

blatham wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I too thank Joe for the heads up.

blatham wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:

And his other attribute is that he is a convicted felon.

You REALLY do need to understand the notion of logical fallacy and how this is an instance of it. It's a logical error you continue to make, in your own posts, and in what you paste.

blatham wrote:

sumac wrote:

Not to mention being completely irrelevant to the subject matter at hand.

sumac

Yes, precisely. Tarantulas is guilty here, again, of the 'ad hominem fallacy', which is one of the fallacies of relevance, and it's the one we most commonly bump into. Eg, "The man is a homosexual. You're going to believe what he says?!" Whatever factual claim has been made remains unaddressed, with attention purposefully shifted over to the irrelevancy of some other factor. It's the prime tool of discreditation, and it is used by this administration every day. It is also the fundamental tool of people like Ann Coulter.

I would ask you two to reconsider this bit of criticism. Do you really think the existence of a criminal record is irrelevant when assessing a person's credentials to speak as an expert on criminal law? A person's sexual preference is indeed irrelevant, but a person's criminal background (or lack thereof) most certainly is not. This isn't true when considering a jury, a judge, an attorney or politician so why should it be when determining the credibility of an "expert witness"? I'm not suggesting it is grounds to dismiss his opinion out-of-hand, but it is certainly worthy of consideration when weighing the credibility of his opinion. Ad-Hominem it is not.

occam

First, if you take a look at Tarantulas' previous posts and pastes, most particularly on the Richard Clarke testimony, it is marked by almost constant use of ad hominem derogations. I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast.

But the Dean matter is more specific. Dean was White House counsel under Nixon, and spent four months in jail for his role in the Watergate coverup (if I recall correctly, it was for lying to FBI agents in the initial investigations). But if there was a good guy amongst the bad guys, it was Dean. You'll possibly recall his warning to Nixon that there was 'a cancer on the Presidency'. It was Dean's testimony to Sam Irvin's Senate committee which named Mitchell, Erlichman, and Haldeman as giving approval for the break-in and which clarified that Nixon had approved of the coverup. Outside of this instance of initially lying to the FBI agents, there's no indication that either previously, or after, Dean has been involved in any other such felonious or criminal actions of any sort.

So, how is this history relevant grounds for questioning the veracity of Dean's comments and viewpoints on this White House? Yet that is exactly how Tarantuas uses that history...to discredit. Yes?

Do you ever get tired of sounding like a hypocritical (Symbol for the democratic party)? Here you are calling someone out for using ad hominem comments on someone and you say "I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast."? I believe that falls under that famous fallacy the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:

Whole buncha bested quotes

That ain't a "fallacy" -- it is an adage.

With all the news coming out of the Middle East, here is a detail you might have missed: A few weeks ago, the United Nations shut down the Ashrafi refugee camp in southwestern Iran. For years Ashrafi had been the largest facility in the world housing displaced Iraqis, tens of thousands of whom had been driven from their homes by Saddam Hussein's brutality. But with Saddam behind bars and his regime crushed, Iraqi exiles have been flocking home. By mid-February the camp had literally emptied out. Now, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports, "nothing remains of Ashrafi but rubble and a few stones."

Refugees surging to Iraq? That isn't what the antiwar legions told us would happen if George Bush made good on his vow to end Saddam's reign of terror. Over and over they warned that a US invasion would trigger a humanitarian cataclysm, including a flood of refugees from Iraq. This, for instance, was Martin Sheen at a Los Angeles news conference a month before the war began:

"As the dogs of war slouch towards Baghdad, we need to be reminded that as many as 2 million refugees could become a reality, as well as half a million fatalities."

Writing on the left-wing website AlterNet last March, senior editor Tai Moses expressed dread of the coming of a war that "could create more than a million refugees." The BBC, citing a "confidential" UN document, predicted that up to 500,000 Iraqis would be seriously injured during the first phase of an American attack, while 1 million would flee the country and 2 million more would be internally displaced -- all compounded by an "outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The Organization of the Islamic Conference foresaw the "displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees," plus "total destruction and a humanitarian tragedy whose scale cannot be predicted."

Wrong, every one of them, along with all the other doomsayers, Bush-haters, "Not In Our Name" fanatics, and sundry "peace" activists who flooded the streets and the airwaves to warn of onrushing disaster. How many have had the integrity to admit that their visions of catastrophe were wildly off the mark? Or that if they had gotten their way, the foremost killer of Muslims alive today -- Saddam -- would still be torturing children before their parents' eyes? Instead they chant, "Bush lied, people died," and seize on every setback in Iraq as proof that they were right all along.

But they were wrong all along. Operation Iraqi Freedom stands as one of the great humanitarian achievements of modern times. For all the Bush administration's mistakes and miscalculations, for all the monumental challenges that remain, Iraq is vastly better off today than it was before the war.

And the Iraqi people know it.

In a nationwide survey conducted by Britain's Oxford Research International, 56 percent of Iraqis say their lives are better now than before the war; only 19 percent say things are worse. Because of "Bush's war," Iraqis today brim with optimism. Fully 71 percent expect their lives to be even better a year from now; less than 7 percent say they'll be worse. Iraq today may just be the most upbeat, forward-looking country in the Arab world.

With hard work and a little luck, it may soon be the best governed as well. The interim constitution approved by the Iraqi Governing Council protects freedom of speech and assembly, guarantees the right to privacy, ensures equality for women, and subordinates the military to civilian control. It is, hands down, the most progressive constitution in the Arab Middle East.

Nearly a year after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq is hugely improved. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages are climbing. The devastated southern marshlands are being restored. More Iraqis own cars and telephones than before Saddam was ousted. Some 2,500 schools have been rehabbed by the US-headed coalition. Spending on health care has soared thirtyfold, and millions of Iraqi children have been vaccinated. Iraqi athletes, no longer terrorized by Saddam's sadistic son Uday, are training for the summer Olympics in Greece.

Above all, Iraq's people are free. The horror and cruelty of the Saddam era are gone forever. In the 12 months since the American and British troops arrived, not one body has been added to a secret mass grave. Not one woman has been raped on government orders. Not one dissident has been mauled to death by trained killer dogs. Not one Kurdish village has been gassed.

Is everything rosy? Of course not. Could the transition to democracy still fail? Yes. Do innocent victims continue to die in horrific terror attacks or at the hands of lynch mobs like the one that dragged the corpses of four Americans through the streets of Falluja yesterday? They do.

But none of that changes the bottom line: In the ancient land that America liberated, life is more beautiful and hopeful than it has been in many decades. Bush's foes may loudly deny it, but the refugees streaming homeward know better.

An article in the Friday, March 29 Washington Post pointed to the
long-expected opening of Phase III of America's war with Iraq. Phase I
Was the jousting contest, the formal "war" between America's and Iraq's
Armies that ended with the fall of Baghdad. Phase II was the War of National Liberation waged by the Baath Party and fought guerilla-style. Phase III, which is likely to prove the decisive phase, is true Fourth Generation war, war waged by a wide variety of non-state Iraqi and other Islamic forces for objectives and motives that reach far beyond politics.

The Post article, "Iraq Attacks Blamed on Islamic Extremists," contains
The following revealing paragraph:

In the intelligence operations room at the 1st Armored
Division's headquarters (in Baghdad), wall-mounted charts identifying
And linking insurgents depict the changing battlefield. Last fall the
organizational chart of Baathist fighters and leaders stretched for 10
feet, while charts listing known Islamic radicals took up a few pieces of
paper. Now, the chart of Iraqi religious extremists dominates the room, while The poster depicting Baathist activity has shrunk to half of its previous size.

The article goes on to quote a U.S. intelligence officer as adding,
"There is no single organization that's behind all this. It's far more
decentralized than that."

Welcome to Phase III. The remaining Baathists will of course continue
Their War of National Liberation, and Fourth Generation elements have been
Active from the outset. But the situation map in the 1st Armored Division's headquarters reveals the "tipping point:" Fourth Generation war is now The dominant form of war against the Americans in Iraq.

What are the implications of Phase III for America's attempts to create
A stable, democratic Iraq? It is safe to say that they are not
favorable. First, it means that the task of recreating a real, functioning Iraqi State - not just a "government" of Quislings living under American protection In the Green Zone - has gotten more difficult. Fourth Generation war represents a quantum move away from the state compared to Phase II, Where the Baathists were fighting to recreate a state under their domination. The fractioning process will continue and accelerate, creating more and More resistance groups, each with its own agenda. The defeat of one means nothing in terms of the defeat of others. There is no center to strike at, no hinge that collapses the enemy as a whole, and no way to Operationalize the conflict. We are forced into a war of attrition against an enemy Who outnumbers us and is far better able to take casualties and still Continue the fight.

We will also find that we have no enemy we can talk to and nothing to
Talk about. Since we - but not our enemies - seek closure, that is a great
disadvantage. Ending a war, unless it is a war of pure annihilation,
Means talking to the enemy and reaching some kind of mutually acceptable
settlement. When the enemy is not one but a large and growing number
Of independent elements, talking is pointless because any agreement only
Ends the war with a single faction. When the enemy's motivation is not
Politics but religion, there is also nothing to talk about, unless it is our conversion to Islam. Putting these two together, the result is war
Without end - or, realistically, an American withdrawal that will also be an American defeat.

Finally, the way the war is fought will gradually change its character.
Fourth Generation forces, like the Baath, will fight a guerilla war.
But religious motivation will gradually introduce new elements. We have
Already seen one: suicide bombers. We will start to see others: women and children taking active roles, riots where the crowds force "coalition"
forces to fire on the people and create massacres, treachery by Iraqis
Who we think are "friends" (we are already seeing that among the Iraqi
police), and finally an Iraqi intifada, where everyone just piles on. That Could happen as early as this summer, at the rate things seem to be going. If it does, American forces will have little choice but to get out of Iraq as Best they can.

Nor is it just in Iraq that American troops are now facing Fourth
Generation
war. They have their hands full of it in Afghanistan, in Pakistan (by
proxy), in Haiti, and in Kosovo. So long as America continues on the
strategic offensive, intervening all over the world, the list will
grow. In each case, the root problem will be the same: the disintegration of
The local state. And in each case, the attempt to recreate a state by
Sending in American armed forces will fail.

As Clausewitz said, "But it is asking too much when a state's integrity
Must be maintained entirely by others."

William S. Lind is the Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism
At the Free Congress Foundation.

Clarks comments on the amusing names in his book. The answer to your question seems to be yes.

Alleged al-Qaida Tape Claims Iraq Attacks

By MAGGIE MICHAEL
Associated Press Writer





DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- A man claiming to be a senior al-Qaida figure that the United States believes is operating in Iraq has released a tape calling for the country's Sunni Muslims to fight Shiites and claiming responsibility for high-profile attacks there.

The 33-minute audiotape appeared Tuesday on a Web site known as a clearinghouse for militant Islamic messages. The speaker introduced himself as Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian also known as Ahmed al-Khalayleh who is thought to be a close associate of Osama bin Laden. It was the first tape of any kind attributed to him to be made public.

The tape's authenticity could not be verified. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in Washington, said experts are looking into it, but it was too early to judge its authenticity."

(AFX UK Focus) 2004-04-07 12:50 GMT:
Ukraine troops leave Iraqi city of Kut to Sadr's supporters, at US request

KIEV (AFX) - Ukrainian troops have withdrawn from the Iraqi city of Kut, south of Baghdad, at the request of the US, leaving it in the hands of supporters of radical Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr, the defence ministry said.

"At the request of the Americans, and to preserve the life of our military, the commander of the Ukrainian contingent decided to evacuate the civil administration staff and Ukrainian troops from Kut," the ministry said in a statement.

"The operation began at dawn on Wednesday ... under escort from attack helicopters," the ministry added.

The Ukraine has 1,600 troops in Iraq.

It appears that Saddam might have been wisked out of Iraq. I will go get the link and post it.

A PoW's exit: US airlifts Saddam out of Iraq
By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent
07 April 2004


The United States has secretly flown Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and imprisoned him under high security at a vast American air base in the Gulf Arab state of Qatar.


Article Length: 906 words (approx.)

. . . . . . . . .

Independent Portfolio Article

This article is available in full to Independent Portfolio subscribers. Access it through BT click&buy.