US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Official Admits Errors in Iraq
Feith Cites Delay in Transfer of Power, Size of U.S. Force

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; Page A12

Douglas J. Feith, a top Pentagon official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq war, said that there were significant missteps in the administration's strategy, including the delayed transfer of power to a new Iraqi government, and that he did not know whether the invading U.S. force was the right size.

In an interview as he concludes his tenure as undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith acknowledged that there were "trade-offs" and "pros and cons" to the Pentagon's plan to use a relatively small invasion force in Iraq, voicing uncertainty about whether that decision was correct. The war's "rolling start" with a streamlined ground force achieved some tactical surprise, he said, potentially averting a longer war and other catastrophes such as the destruction of Iraqi oil fields. But he acknowledged that a small force had drawbacks, and others have criticized the plan for failing to stop widespread looting and insecurity after Saddam Hussein's government fell in April 2003.

...

His comments are a rare public sign of doubt about Iraq policy by a Pentagon official.

...

On troop levels in Iraq, Feith said U.S. military commanders -- not the Pentagon -- determined the flow of and number of forces into the country. "I don't believe there was a single case where the commander asked for forces and didn't get them . . . the commander controlled the forces in the theater," he said.

Senior U.S. Army officers dispute this view, saying the Pentagon cut off the planned influx of nine division-equivalents into Iraq in the war's initial phase.

CONTINUED AT,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201422.html

ican711nm wrote:

It is also true that malignancy must be exterminated.

I'm always amazed by a vocabulary every terrorist or guerrilla leader would be proud of, while trying to argue for the good side.

Al-Qaeda's plan is that the West will blame Islam


Jason Burke, chief reporter for the London Observer and author of a book on the subject, was the first to define the real problem as al-Qaedaism. It is not a terrorist group that the world is dealing with in the London and other bombings and 9/11; it is an ideology or belief system. A majority of experts now see the problem in this fashion, writes Richard Whelan

...

The only way the relatively small number of al-Qaedaists can succeed is if the rest of the world acts as though Islam is to blame.

Only then in a reaction to such can the al-Qaedaists highjack Islam and its 1.3 billion adherents worldwide for their own ends.

Richard Whelan's book, Al-Qaedaism, the Threat to Islam, the Threat to the World will be published in September.

© The Irish Times

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

It is also true that malignancy must be exterminated.

I'm always amazed by a vocabulary every terrorist or guerrilla leader would be proud of, while trying to argue for the good side.

What's vocabulary got to do with it?

But then, your own side is always the good side, isn't it?

According to them,

Americans are the malignancy that must be eliminated if THEY are to survive.

You sound exactly like the enemy. I don't care that you will respond 'yeah, but they are killing people and I am not, so I am correct and they are wrong.' That doesn't matter. Your rhetoric is exactly the same.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

It is also true that malignancy must be exterminated.

I'm always amazed by a vocabulary every terrorist or guerrilla leader would be proud of, while trying to argue for the good side.

What's vocabulary got to do with it?[/size]

'What's vocabulary got to do with it?'

Wait, there's something I don't get: you're supporting a crusade against islamist extremists - not only those who blow themselves up, but maybe even more so against those who preach hate.

...

You know how to spell 'irony', dontcha?

... Do as I do. Do not call them Muslim/Islam jihadists, or jihadist Muslim/Islamists, or Muslim/Islam extremists, or extremist Muslim/Islamists, or Muslim/Islam anything-ists, or anything-ist Muslim/Islamists. Call them what they really are. They are a malignancy of humanity. They are simply malignancy. The malignancy consists of mass murderers of civilians and the accomplices of mass murderers of civilians.

How can one end malignancy? One can end malignancy by exterminating it before it becomes ubiquitous throughout humanity.

How else can malignancy be ended?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

How can one end malignancy? One can end malignancy by exterminating it before it becomes ubiquitous throughout humanity.

Well, maybe you just don't care. Or you're just ignorant when saying that vocabulary is not the issue.

I rate substance over form.

I rate actions over intentions.

I rate concepts over nomenclature.

I rate liberty over totalitarianism.

I want liberty to be ubiquitous throughout humanity.

I fear totalitarianism. I want totalitarianism -- in particular malignancy -- exterminated throughout humanity.

Because vocabulary always comes first. It's what comes before the deeds. In fact, it makes them 'acceptable', and it's a tactic that has been used in all totalitarian regimes, and not only there.

No! Concept comes before vocabulary. My desire is to communicate concepts. My concept is malignancy is contrary to the self-interest of humanity. My concept is malignancy should not be allowed to exist anymore. My concept is exterminate malignancy.

I do not think it wise for me to camouflage my concepts with euphemisms particularly politically correct euphemisms. The fact that some bad guys use some of the same vocabulary I do is flatout irrelevant. It is the concept and the accurate communication of the concept that counts.

The malignancy seeks to murder civilians in order to achieve totalitarian control of humanity and thereby exterminate liberty.

I seek to prevent that by exterminating the malignancy.

So if you're afraid to use your liberty, why are you willing to sacrifice your vocabulary and use the vocabulary of totalitarianism instead? Why are you using their vocabulary? Don't you have your own?

I am using my liberty. I am using my choice of vocabulary. I am using vocabulary contained in the English language. I am using vocabulary that belongs to all who write in English. I forthrightly use my liberty to use that vocabulary that I think most accurately and clearly communicates my concepts. I do that despite anyone else's attempts to censure (not censor) how I choose to articulate my concepts. The fact that others good or bad use the same vocabulary is irrelevant to me and my concepts. I think it should likewise be irrelevant to you.

Don't get me wrong - freedom of speech and all - I'm not going to tell you what words you can use. But it's forfeit, in my eyes. Vocabulary is an essential part of a culture, and the American culture was always admired as well as emulated. For values like liberty, democracy, pursuit of happiness.

For words like these:

Quote:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

See? There's nothing about "Put that useless bunch of homeless and tempest-tost on the next plane and send them back to the place where they came from" in it, right?

There is nothing in the concepts I am articulating nor in the way I am articulating them that communicates to a rational mind anything of that kind of reversal of principles.

You say that without guys like you we would lack the life we require to pursue happiness on this planet. Well,
guys like you, just on the other side, who have enough influence and enough listeners in their mosques, and who incite people by declaring things like this:

Quote:

How can one end malignancy? One can end malignancy by exterminating it before it becomes ubiquitous throughout humanity.

they got us into this. Don't you see that? If you know that you are better than them, that you are on the right side, that your side stands for liberty and not for hate - why not act like it?

Ahha! Eureka! I am acting like it! Perhaps you think my basic concept is: "I/we are better than them." I never wrote that, nor wrote anything that implies that. I am acting quite pragmatically.

They (i.e., the malignancy) are human beings like I am. All humanity are human beings like I am. The difference we are discussing here is quite specific. I wish to preserve liberty; they wish to exterminate liberty by replacing it with a totalitatariansim. I despise the mass murder of civilians for any purpose. They employ the mass murder of civilians to achieve their objectives. I think civilians do not mass murder civilians. Therefore I think they are not civilians. So I advocate they be exterminated to stop them from mass murdering civilians.

I want what I want. They want what they want. Since what I want and what they want are mutually exclusive, I seek to deny them what they want.

In short, I want liberty. They want totalitarianism. If I get what I want, they cannot get what they want. If they get what they want, I cannot get what I want.

Quote:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

See? There's nothing about "Put that useless bunch of homeless and tempest-tost on the next plane and send them back to the place where they came from" in it, right?

... The words (rhetoric) that we use can carry far deeper meaning of far further scope than what the uninformed might understand. And from time to time as our collective experience changes, so does our collective language, and every now and then we have to make up a new word when there is no appropriate word that fits.

The unabridged dictionary is ever expanding.

The words (rhetoric) that we use can carry far deeper meaning of far further scope than what the uninformed might understand. And from time to time as our collective experience changes, so does our collective language, and every now and then we have to make up a new word when there is no appropriate word that fits.

No! I realize they changed and are changing. I inferred, apparently falsely, that you had in mind some specific additional changes that you thought would be sufficient if adopted.

Do you mean law enforcement efforts outside of Afghanistan as well as outside of Iraq?

Do you think the alleged establishment and growth of al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq did not happen?

In science, engineering and aviation, providing evidence of negatives (i.e., showing something is probably not true) is not only a continuing burden, but is also a way of life. So that's why I asked. I am ignorant of any valid reasons why that doesn't apply to political and military problems as well. But if you don't want to, accept such a burden I'll drop it.

This is in fact what I wanted to explore with you. Namely what are the negatives and why; what are the positives and why; which outweigh the other and why?

(1) al Qaeda is a significant threat to the US;

(2) al Qaeda established itself in Afghanistan prior to its invasion;

(3) al Qaeda grew significantly in Afghanistan prior to its invasion;
(4) al Qaeda established itself in Iraq prior to its invasion;
(5) al Qaeda grew significantly in Iraq prior to its invasion; and,

(6) al Qaeda in Iraq murdered civilians in Iraq prior to its invasion.

...
Yes, I hold that the augmentation of the efforts to fight terrorism by law enforcement worldwide has a greater effect on the ability of terrorist organizations to strike than does invading Iraq.

I assume you mean a greater limitation on the ability of terrorist organizations to strike... Why do you think so?

Quote:

Do you think the alleged establishment and growth of al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq did not happen?

No, but I do think it has been invoked with much hyperbole and that tangible logistic benefits were not shown to exist, or to be forthcoming.

As you already know, we disagree.

Scientific method is such that burden of proof is a prodedural rigour. The claim that Iraq poses a threat creates a burden of proof that this is true, not a burden of proof that it is not.

I don't understand what you mean by "a procedural rigor." Do you think such does not apply to rational argument of any other kind--in particular, apply to the political kind of argument we are attempting to have.

Arguing that it is not is as simple as pointing out the lacking evidence that it is.

I infer that when you claim that evidence is lacking, you think such claim is sufficient and does not require that you explain why you think the evidence that I have provided is lacking and/or is not evidence.

Quote:

This is in fact what I wanted to explore with you. Namely what are the negatives and why; what are the positives and why; which outweigh the other and why?

I'd be happy to explore this.

What are some negatives you see in invading Iraq?

Costs: in lives of Americans, lives of our allies, and in lives of Iraqis our military killed unintentionally; in dollars of expense; in distractions from other problems that also require attention; in a more than doubling of the world market price of oil. Why? I think the whys are self-evident here, but I will supply them if you like.

What are some negatives you see in not invading Iraq?

Quote:

(1) al Qaeda is a significant threat to the US;

Depends on your definition of significant. Al Quaeda poses no statistically significant threat to the US. However, I do agree that they are a significant threat due to the psychology of terrorism.

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean you think another attack by al Qaeda is unlikely, and/or you think that more than say 10 civilian deaths due to such attack is unlikely?

Quote:

(2) al Qaeda established itself in Afghanistan prior to its invasion;

As they have in many nations, including the US. Unless this is further qualified it does not make a better case for invading Iraq than it does for invading the UK.

By "established" I mean obtained sanctuary for training with at least the acquiesence of the nation's government in which the sanctuary was obtained.

Quote:

(3) al Qaeda grew significantly in Afghanistan prior to its invasion;
(4) al Qaeda established itself in Iraq prior to its invasion;
(5) al Qaeda grew significantly in Iraq prior to its invasion; and,

I don't think the Al Qaeda presence in Iraq can be held to be comparable in scope to that in Afghanistan, in Afghanistan they came close to running the country and had very significant autonomy. Do you think the two scenarios comparable in scope?

I think the scope of the first 15 months of al Qaeda growth in Afghanistan and the scope of the 15 months of al Qaeda growth in Iraq before Iraq was invaded are roughly comparable. On that basis, I project (or wouldn't dare assume otherwise) that the full 5 year growth of al Qaeda in Iraq would have been at least comparable in scope to the actual 5 year growth of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Quote:

(6) al Qaeda in Iraq murdered civilians in Iraq prior to its invasion.

How is this a threat to the US (which is what I was incredulous about)?

In and of itself it is no threat to the US. Rather what I think it portended for the future is what constitutes the threat to the US. In short when they mass murder there, they in future mass murdered everywhere, in particular, here in America. That's the way they went in Afghanistan. I think the evidence now is strong that Saddam's regime was becoming more than a mere acquiescor to al Qaeda; I think it was becoming an accomplice and would have arrived at that condition in earnest, had we not invaded, as soon as UN sanctions on Iraq were lifted.

I think that President Clinton if armed then with the wisdom of hindsight, would have invaded Afghanistan on his watch to prevent a 9/11.

Well, we both now have that same wisdom of hindsight too. The US did act and I think, applying the wisdom of hindsight, should have acted on it.

The neat thing about hindsight is it doesn't require proof because it is intrinsically proof. On the otherhand, application of a hindsight regarding one situation to what is perceived to be a comparable situation, requires rational judgment. Sometimes it's right; sometimes it's not. That's life! And, that's death too!

This article... is comment on evidence now available that the actions of military personnel at Abu Graib detention facility were not the actions of a few rogue elements, but were official policy.