9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 08:24 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
Yes, Powell's speech contained lots of falsities. But it also contained some truths.


so whenever OUR LEADERS (and that does include canadian LEADERS) , give a speech etc. the citizens better realize that there may be some TRUTHS hidden in the FALSITIES (are those similar to TRUTHINESS ?) .
should be lots of fun hunting for the nuggets of truth amongst the FALSITIES !
hbg

from the free dictionary :
fal·si·ties
1. The quality or condition of being false.
2. Something false; a lie(SURPRISE , SURPRISE !)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 08:43 pm
A little falsities are okay if it's for the sole purpose of starting an illegal war, but there must also be some truths mixed in with the falsities.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:12 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican wrote :

Quote:
Yes, Powell's speech contained lots of falsities. But it also contained some truths.


so whenever OUR LEADERS (and that does include canadian LEADERS) , give a speech etc. the citizens better realize that there may be some TRUTHS hidden in the FALSITIES (are those similar to TRUTHINESS ?) .
should be lots of fun hunting for the nuggets of truth amongst the FALSITIES !
hbg

from the free dictionary :
fal·si·ties
1. The quality or condition of being false.
2. Something false; a lie(SURPRISE , SURPRISE !)

My interpretation of the definition of "falsity" is: when one doesn't know he is stating a falsity he is incompetent; when he does know he is stating a falsity he is lying.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:13 pm
ican, Your interpretation is wrong.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Your interpretation is wrong.

I think you just wrote a falsity. Since I cannot read your mind, I do not know whether or not you knew it was a falsity when you wrote it. I'll give you the benefit of my doubt and judge you to be incompetent and not a liar.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:35 pm
For ican's benefit:

from the free dictionary :
fal·si·ties

1. The quality or condition of being false.
2. Something false; a lie(SURPRISE , SURPRISE !)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:40 pm
Definitions
falsity
noun

falsities
1. The quality of being false; a false assertion.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Falsity \Fal"si*ty\, n.;pl. Falsities. [L. falsitas: cf. F.
fausset['e], OF. also, falsit['e]. See False, a.]
1. The quality of being false; coutrariety or want of
conformity to truth.

Probability does not make any alteration, either in
the truth or falsity of things. --South.

2. That which is false; falsehood; a lie; a false assertion.
Men often swallow falsities for truths. --Sir T.
Brown.

Syn: Falsehood; lie; deceit.

Usage: Falsity, Falsehood, Lie. Falsity denotes the
state or quality of being false. A falsehood is a
false declaration designedly made. A lie is a gross,
unblushing falsehood. The falsity of a person's
assertion may be proved by the evidence of others and
thus the charge of falsehood be fastened upon him.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Sep, 2007 09:45 pm
Republicans, Paul clash over Iraq war


By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago



DURHAM, N.H. - Republican presidential contenders voiced support for the Iraq war Wednesday night despite a warning from anti-war candidate Ron Paul that they risk dragging the party down to defeat in 2008.


"Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor," shot back former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, "and that is more important to the Republican Party."

Huckabee was in the majority, Paul very much in the minority on a University of New Hampshire debate stage when it came to the war. The politically unpopular conflict has emerged as the dominant issue of the 2008 race for the White House.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 04:22 am
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
ican wrote:
Saddam's administration, after Powell's speech, denied Powell's WMD charges and several others made by Powell. Saddam did not deny any of the charges I quoted.


...

Besides it mattered little what SH said, GB was going to attack him anyway and he knew it.

If Saddam knew what in your last sentence you said he knew, he would have been desperate to try and persuade the UN to oppose Bush's plan in the desperate hope of the UN persuading Bush to change his mind. All he had to say was: We tried to capture Zarqawi but so far we are unable to, because ...

But what Saddam did or did not do about extraditing Zarqawii is relatively unimportant. Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. Al-Qaeda had to be removed from Iraq as well as from Afghanistan to stop or at least limit al-Qaeda's growth in order to protect America's security.


You seem to have connivently forgotten your history. SH complied with the UN when they demanded a list of all his weapons. Bush rejected the list and said it was a lie. Bush was determined to invade Iraq WMD's or no WMD's; AQ or no AQ.

It would have been far, far easier for GB to take out the AQ camp than SH. He had the means to do and SH didn't. Incompetence is not the reason GB didn't attack the camp. He needed it as one of the excuses to attack Iraq. Maybe in your fantasy world that may be the reason to attack Iraq but the fact that we could have removed the AQ camp at any time we wanted, and didn't, shows that it was not the danger you imagine it to be.

As I said before 6,000 Kurds and some SF teams easily removed them. Hardly a reason to invade a country.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 04:26 am
BTW ican, I hope your not going to be simple enough to think if SH had tried to expel AQ that GB would not have invaded Iraq.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:43 am
Quote:
The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

The administration has not given up trying to demonstrate that Iraq is moving toward political reconciliation. Testifying with Petraeus next week, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker is expected to report that top Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders agreed last month to work together on key legislation demanded by Congress. If all goes as U.S. officials hope, Crocker will also be able to point to a visit today to the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province by ministers in the Shiite-dominated government -- perhaps including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy. The ministers plan to hand Anbar's governor $70 million in new development funds, the official said.

But most of the administration's case will rest on security data, according to military, intelligence and diplomatic officials who would not speak on the record before the Petraeus-Crocker testimony. Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were offered military statistics during Baghdad visits in August said they had been convinced that Bush's new strategy, and the 162,000 troops carrying it out, has produced enough results to merit more time.

Challenges to how military and intelligence statistics are tallied and used have been a staple of the Iraq war. In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have called the military's findings into question. The Associated Press last week counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since the AP began collecting data in April 2005.

The GAO report found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007," a conclusion that the military said was skewed because it did not include dramatic, up-to-date information from August.

Juan R.I. Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan who is critical of U.S. policy, said that most independent counts "do not agree with Pentagon estimates about drops in civilian deaths."

In a letter last week to the leadership of both parties, a group of influential academics and former Clinton administration officials called on Congress to examine "the exact nature and methodology that is being used to track the security situation in Iraq and specifically the assertions that sectarian violence is down."

The controversy centers as much on what is counted -- attacks on civilians vs. attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops, numbers of attacks vs. numbers of casualties, sectarian vs. intra-sect battles, daily numbers vs. monthly averages -- as on the numbers themselves.

The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them out of context. In an e-mailed response to questions last weekend, an MNF-I spokesman said that while trends were favorable, "exact monthly figures cannot be provided" for attacks against civilians or other categories of violence in 2006 or 2007, either in Baghdad or for the country overall. "MNF-I makes every attempt to ensure it captures the most comprehensive, accurate, and valid data on civilian and sectarian deaths," the spokesman wrote. "However, there is not one central place for data or information. . . . This means there can be variations when different organizations examine this information."

In a follow-up message yesterday, the spokesman said that the non-release policy had been changed this week but that the numbers were still being put "in the right context."

Attacks labeled "sectarian" are among the few statistics the military has consistently published in recent years, although the totals are regularly recalculated. The number of monthly "sectarian murders and incidents" in the last six months of 2006, listed in the Pentagon's quarterly Iraq report published in June, was substantially higher each month than in the Pentagon's March report. MNF-I said that "reports from un-reported/not-yet-reported past incidences as well as clarification/corrections on reports already received" are "likely to contribute to changes."

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent "since last year," the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that "last year" referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however -- before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush's strategy -- the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May "but trending back down in June-July."

Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with the Australian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet.

When a member of the National Intelligence Council visited Baghdad this summer to review a draft of the intelligence estimate on Iraq, Petraeus argued that its negative judgments did not reflect recent improvements. At least one new sentence was added to the final version, noting that "overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks."

A senior military intelligence official in Baghdad deemed it "odd" that "marginal" security improvements were reflected in an estimate assessing the previous seven months and projecting the next six to 12 months. He attributed the change to a desire to provide Petraeus with ammunition for his congressional testimony.

The intelligence official in Washington, however, described the Baghdad consultation as standard in the NIE drafting process and said that the "new information" did not change the estimate's conclusions. The overall assessment was that the security situation in Iraq since January "was still getting worse," he said, "but not as fast."


source
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:54 am
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 07:55 am
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Petraeus claimed before being assigned to head the Iraq war, he told congress there were multiple fronts that needed to be attended to win in Iraq. Lo and behold, nine months later, he's going to talk about the "military" successes, and not even mention the diplomatic and Iraq government (in shambles) issues he addressed. He's also going to tell congress, they need more time to get the Iraqi army to take over while we reduce our troops. We've seen several reports, even from the NIE, that the Iraqi deaths are increasing - not decreasing, but Petraeus will ignore those negatives in his report to congress. It'll shock me if he even mentions the Iraqi government as showing "progress."


Congress to hear from Iraq panel today 2 hours, 4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who led a 20-member panel studying Iraqi security forces, is to testify before Congress today. His report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said Iraq's security forces would be unable to take control of their country in the next 18 months.




Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:00 am
The administration is already preparing the world on Iraq; stay beyond Bush's tenure.


From USA Today:
Bolten: Iraq won't end with Bush term
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:19 am
I don't think any of the presidential contenders are under any illusion that Iraq will be resolved before their gig begins.

They may even realize Iran may be handed off too.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:23 am
It had better not be.

Iraq won't be 'resolved' for decades to come. That's the Bush legacy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:14 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Definitions
falsity
noun

falsities
1. The quality of being false; a false assertion.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Falsity \Fal"si*ty\, n.;pl. Falsities. [L. falsitas: cf. F.
fausset['e], OF. also, falsit['e]. See False, a.]
1. The quality of being false; coutrariety or want of
conformity to truth.

Probability does not make any alteration, either in
the truth or falsity of things. --South.

2. That which is false; falsehood; a lie; a false assertion.
Men often swallow falsities for truths. --Sir T.
Brown.

Syn: Falsehood; lie; deceit.

Usage: Falsity, Falsehood, Lie. Falsity denotes the
state or quality of being false. A falsehood is a
false declaration designedly made. A lie is a gross,
unblushing falsehood. The falsity of a person's
assertion may be proved by the evidence of others and
thus the charge of falsehood be fastened upon him.

All lies are falsities, but not all falsities are lies.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:37 am
Quote:
Operation Phantom Strike
How the U.S. military is demolishing al Qaeda in Iraq.
by Mario Loyola
Weekly Standard
09/03/2007, Volume 012, Issue 47

Falluja, Iraq

On August 15, several hours after night fell over Baghdad, an air assault squadron of the 3rd Infantry Division launched the first attack of Operation Marne Husky. A dozen darkened transport and attack helicopters took off and headed south along the Tigris River, carrying a full company of infantry--about 120 young riflemen with night goggles and weapons loaded. Their objective was a hamlet several dozen miles away. At about 11 P.M., the force landed and rapidly surrounded several small structures. The occupants were taken by surprise. Five suspected insurgents were captured. By 4 A.M., the entire team was airborne again.

Every night since then similar scenes have unfolded at dozens of locations in and around Baghdad--all part of a larger operation named Phantom Strike. The attacks involve units of all sizes and configurations, coming in by air and land. In some cases, the units get out quickly. In others, they pitch tents for an extended stay. The idea is to keep the enemy--al Qaeda and its affiliates--on the defense and constantly guessing, thereby turning formerly "safe" insurgent areas into areas of prohibitive risk for them.

Time and space

The impetus for Phantom Strike was, in a way, born in Washington, where Congress created a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq by mid-September, at which point an "interim report" is required from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander. The legislation inadvertently (perhaps "negligently" is a better word) created a "Tet" opportunity for al Qaeda here. If it can dominate headlines with spectacular mass-casualty

suicide attacks in the days and weeks leading up to the report, the political climate in Washington might turn irretrievably against the military effort, thereby snatching a victory for the terrorists that they have failed to win on the ground. (Just as the Viet Cong's Tet offensive in 1968, while a military debacle for them, convinced U.S. media and political elites that that war was lost.) With this in mind, operational planners earlier this year began laying out a strategy to disrupt al Qaeda's ability to carry out the expected attacks.

Learning from past mistakes, commanders of the "surge" forces now take territory only if they can hold it. But for certain elements of Phantom Strike, they are making an exception to that rule. Divisional commands across Iraq have been instructed to cash in their accumulated intel and attack insurgents where they are most likely to be hiding--whether it makes sense to hold the territory or not. In planning rooms across the central third of Iraq, commanders looked at their target wish-lists--places where they had taken fire in the past, or tracked possible insurgents, or gotten credible tips from the population--and chose the most enticing ones.

The Joint Campaign Plan, a document that operationalizes the surge in accordance with Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, calls for coalition forces to give the government of Iraq "the time and space that it needs to succeed," according to military officers. The practical emphasis has been on "space." By pushing coalition forces out from their bases and into neighborhoods across Baghdad and other major urban centers in Iraq, commanders have sought to establish "area security" through "clear, control, and retain" operations. Key to retaining these areas is the participation of Iraqi Security Forces and other nonmilitary Iraqi government support.

The success enjoyed in places like Anbar province has come because security forces convinced people that they were there to stay. Those populations have shown their appreciation by joining the fight against al Qaeda in their neighborhoods, joining the police, and establishing neighborhood watch systems. Purely disruptive raids in which neither control nor retention is sought have thus fallen somewhat into disfavor.

But there is one good reason not to abandon them altogether. Disruption is a way to seize and maintain the initiative. Disruptive attacks keep the enemy off-balance, guessing as to your next move. That makes him concentrate on defense, and put off his own attacks. It's like a boxer keeping his opponent on the ropes with a flurry of jabs until the right moment for a knock-out blow.

Operation Marne Husky is just such a disruptive operation. Most of General Rick Lynch's 3rd Infantry forces are committed to massive "clear control and retain" (CCR) operations in his area. He was therefore somewhat short of troops to contribute to Phantom Strike activities. But he wasn't short on targets. His operations have produced a steady stream of al Qaeda and other insurgents fleeing further south for safety, mostly to an area on the Tigris known as the Samarrah jungle. Flushed from their safe havens, and tracked by intel, the insurgents were now vulnerable--in some cases, sitting ducks. Once the Phantom Strike guidance gave Lynch the order to attack, all he needed was a little ingenuity to come up with the right assets.

The 3rd

Infantry Division headquarters has a combat air brigade with more than a hundred helicopters. Marshalling other support services, and mustering a company of crack infantry freed up by the dramatically reduced tempo of operations in Anbar, Lynch put together an ad hoc unit for targeted strike operations, rather like a special forces contingent. In the first week of operations, this small force killed seven fighters and detained 64 suspects including 14 high-value targets, clearing nearly 120 structures in the process.

Such results are an early return on investment for the doctrines developed by Petraeus. The Counterinsurgency Field Manual, formulated under his command and released last December, chews through a lot of theory to arrive at one basic practical tenet: "Intelligence drives operations." The counterinsurgency manual specifies that being able to distinguish between insurgents and civilians is the key to victory.

The only way to do that is to provide protection for the population, enfranchise them, and enlist their help in identifying the insurgents. This creates a virtuous circle--security operations produce good intel which produces better security operations and in turn better intel. The CCR operations in and around Baghdad have produced a trove of actionable intelligence on al Qaeda--its movements, its senior leaders, and the sources and locations of its weapons, explosives, and bomb-making equipment. Phantom Strike has capitalized on that intel, further reducing al Qaeda's capacity to attack, which has improved security and increases the population's confidence in the Coalition and in the Iraqi Security Forces.

Of course, al Qaeda has not taken all of this lying down. All the good news coming out of Iraq recently is even more depressing for al Qaeda than it is for Harry Reid, if that is possible, and al Qaeda could smell that something like Phantom Strike might be coming. It had to pull off a spectacular attack--and it did. On August 14, four near-simultaneous car bombs destroyed whole rows of mud-brick houses in a pair of small farming villages in Yazidi, killing on the order of 400 Iraqis, and wounding many more--a horrifying toll even for today's Iraq.

But the site of the terror attack--in the far northwest of Iraq, 75 miles west of Mosul beyond the upper Tigris--was very interesting.

Lay of the land

To understand why, it is necessary to know something of the human geography of Iraq. Baghdad sits at the confluence of the Tigris River and its main tributary, the Diyala; these both flow from the north. The Euphrates River travels across Iraq from west to east, curving sharply south in the southwest suburbs of Baghdad. From there, the Euphrates and the Tigris converge gently, finally issuing, far to the south, into the Persian Gulf. Because Iraq's populated areas hug its great rivers, the human geography of the country lies along five corridors all connected to a central hub--Baghdad.

Outside those fertile corridors lies a scorching, lifeless desert--in many places no further than three miles from the nearest river. Because the desert has no water, it favors the army that can most easily maneuver over long distances with its own water. The Americans are thus masters of the desert in Iraq.

The insurgents, by contrast, don't do so well there. Even when they disguise themselves as Bedouins, their patterns of congregation and movement are easily detected by the scores of unmanned aerial vehicles constantly on the prowl overhead. And they can't move around readily, because the desert is largely impassable and in any case totally exposed, its few roads easily monitored. This means both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency center on Iraq's five river corridors.

Of these, the one where al Qaeda has suffered its clearest and most humiliating defeat is along the western Euphrates--the corridor stretching from Baghdad to Falluja, Ramadi, Haditha, and on to Al Qaim near the Syrian border. Not too long ago the heart of the Sunni insurgency, the entire corridor has fallen to coalition forces. Insurgents are finding that they can't get past the outer checkpoints far enough to approach any of the main cities, and even crossing from one side of the Euphrates to the other has become extremely difficult. Indeed the situation in Anbar has advanced to the point where the Marine Expeditionary Force has hit all of its major "intel targets" and had virtually none to nominate for the Phantom Strike campaign.

Moving counterclockwise, the corridors formed by the southern Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and the irrigated land between them, are mainly Iraq's Shiite heartland. But this twin corridor is dominated at its northern end by a belt of Sunni settlements, running along the outer perimeter of southern Baghdad. Saddam Hussein contrived this as a defense-in-depth of his precious capital. In this Baghdad belt, Lynch's division has been conducting a series of enormous CCR operations. Insurgents are fleeing south, but will soon start running into the Shiite wall, where (after years--indeed decades--of abusing the Shiites) they are likely to suffer a fate far worse than getting captured by coalition forces.

The next river corridor to the north is the Diyala valley, which leads from Baghdad to Baquba, Muqtadiya, and Mansuriyah, finally hitting the Kurdish region where the terrain becomes mountainous. Starting in mid-June with Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which focused on Baquba, this area has seen the heaviest fighting in Iraq since the start of the surge last February. It is also the site of the most complex and interesting of the Phantom Strike operations--Lightning Hammer--which focuses on the upper Diyala River valley from Baquba to the Kurdish region.

These four corridors, which only a year ago were wide open to the insurgents, have become increasingly nettlesome and dangerous for them since the start of the surge. The large areas shown on intel maps as "safe" for the insurgents only last year have been whittled down to small pockets here and there. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are increasingly desperate for safe havens from which to operate and lines of communication they can rely on.

Increasingly the insurgents' only option is the fifth corridor, the northern Tigris River valley stretching from Baghdad to Samarrah, Tikrit, and Mosul in the far north. This is why the location of al Qaeda's August 16 attack, 75 miles west of Mosul, was so telling. The car-bombs were likely assembled near Mosul because of the increased risk of trying to assemble them anywhere else in Iraq. And they were "delivered" locally because al Qaeda probably decided that the long journey down the Tikrit-Samarrah-Baghdad highway was too dangerous.

Al Qaeda understands how to manipulate western media well enough to know that they don't always need to attack in Baghdad. Indeed, the bombing dominated the headlines in the United States in the dramatic opening days of Operation Phantom Strike. But because of where it occurred, it told the coalition's planners that they have been effective, too.

Hammer and anvil

No current fighting shows the ingenuity of U.S. planners better than the Lightning Hammer operations in the Diyala River valley. The focus of Lightning Hammer at the moment is an elegant and dramatic attack on the suspected havens of the al Qaeda elements that were forced north out of Baquba earlier this summer.

The attack unfolded in two phases, the first of which was the rapid concentration of forces at several different points along the upper Diyala River valley. Two air assault squadrons, one from the the 25th Infantry Division out of Kirkuk, and another of the 82nd Airborne out of Tikrit, took off for the western side of the valley. Consisting of several dozen helicopters and some 240 soldiers, the two squadrons converged on five locations among the maze of canals and broken farmland that runs along the western edge of the valley. Their purpose was to establish a screen to block the most likely escape routes for the insurgents who were about to be flushed out of the valley.

Meanwhile, snatching helicopters from other units in the area, another air assault squadron was attached to a battalion of the armor-heavy 1st Cavalry Division at Forward Operating Base Normandy, in the northern Diyala River valley. The entire force then headed south out of the FOB, some 300 soldiers in a column of tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees and helicopters. They pushed through Moqdadiyah and plunged towards the valley.

Simultaneously, another battalion of the 1st Cav pushed northeast from Baquba in a small operation dubbed Pericles (also part of Lightning Hammer and Phantom Strike) meant to attack specific intel targets within one of the few remaining pockets of safety for insurgents in the area. The operation had the secondary effect of putting a full battalion of heavy infantry in the field at the bottom of the Diyala River valley just above Baquba, to act as an anvil for the coming operation.

The two battalions wasted no time in launching the second phase of the battle, moving towards each other from opposite ends of the valley, in a simultaneous, massive, and rapid CCR operation. In six days, the two battalions flooded 28 specific targets--including whole villages--in a fast-moving combination of ground and air assaults.

Many al Qaeda fighters appear to have had just enough warning to make good their escape. But in so doing, they were forced to abandon their new "operations center" north of Baghdad--a command post, medical clinic, scores of rockets and mortars, dozens of IEDs, and even their personal weapons.

The prospects for these fighters are not good. The north and south end of the valleys are blocked, as is the valley's western border. The eastern escape from the valley is open for them, but that leads them into a bowl of farmland that is regularly scoured by patrols from FOB Caldwell, and is ringed to the northeast by the Kurdish "wall," to the south by the Shiite "wall," and to the southwest by coalition forces operating in strength between Baghdad and Baquba. Their only solution is to travel without their weapons and explosives--the things that make them dangerous.

Meanwhile, not beset by the force limitations that constrain General Lynch south of Baghdad, General Benjamin Mixon's Multi-National Division-North has orchestrated the Lightning Hammer attack as a CCR on the pattern developed by the Marines in Anbar. Close behind the American units came units of the Iraqi Security Forces, aiming to stay, and behind them, government officials and technical advisers meant to levee the population into the organized neighborhood watch programs that have proven fatal to al Qaeda in Anbar. Planners told me that the coalition forces were greeted warmly, and locals pledged to help, as the Sunni tribes have in Anbar.

The way forward

Al Qaeda in Iraq had many initial advantages--including a message that, though false, was superficially appealing. But they never achieved national scope. They have never looked to anyone like they could actually govern a country. They never gained the open support of any foreign army. And now, after giving the people of Iraq a taste of their brutal sadism--after executing children for playing with American-donated soccer balls, after chopping the fingers off young men for smoking, after murdering entire families in front of the youngest son, so he would live to tell the tale--Al Qaeda in Iraq is more widely hated than feared.

In the words of one soft-spoken coalition planner in Baghdad, "We are demolishing them." After four long years, the coalition has finally grasped the keys to victory. Al Qaeda has begun to lose the staging areas it needs for attacks in Baghdad. Just staying alive and avoiding capture is becoming a full-time occupation for them. As security envelops Baghdad, and calm spreads along the river corridors that extend out from the capital to the furthest reaches of the country, what is already clear to many people here in Iraq will become increasingly impossible for the rest of the world to ignore.

Because they have finally learned how to protect the people of Iraq--and help them to protect themselves--the United States and its allies are winning this war.

Mario Loyola, a fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is embedded with the Marine Expeditionary Force in western Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:39 am
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Definitions
falsity
noun

falsities
1. The quality of being false; a false assertion.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Falsity \Fal"si*ty\, n.;pl. Falsities. [L. falsitas: cf. F.
fausset['e], OF. also, falsit['e]. See False, a.]
1. The quality of being false; coutrariety or want of
conformity to truth.

Probability does not make any alteration, either in
the truth or falsity of things. --South.

2. That which is false; falsehood; a lie; a false assertion.
Men often swallow falsities for truths. --Sir T.
Brown.

Syn: Falsehood; lie; deceit.

Usage: Falsity, Falsehood, Lie. Falsity denotes the
state or quality of being false. A falsehood is a
false declaration designedly made. A lie is a gross,
unblushing falsehood. The falsity of a person's
assertion may be proved by the evidence of others and
thus the charge of falsehood be fastened upon him.

All lies are falsities, but not all falsities are lies.


They are when you know that you aren't telling the truth.

Quote:
Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," according to the magazine.

Presented with a script for his speech, Mr Powell suspected that Washington hawks were "cherry picking", the US magazine Newsweek also reports today. Greg Theilmann, a recently retired state department intelligence analyst directly involved in assessing the Iraqi threat, says that inside the Bush administration "there is a lot of sorrow and anger at the way intelligence was misused".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 10:40 am
ican quoted :

Quote:
1. The quality of being false; coutrariety or want of
conformity to truth.


perhaps my judgement is a little harsh but here it is .
children will tell lies , often because they do not know the truth and don`t realize that they are telling a lie . fools may also be liars
`want of conformity to truth `, sounds to me like NOT BEING TRUTHFUL , not telling the truth - even though the person very well knows what the truth is . in my book , that is worse than a plain lie .
someone telling a lie is often not surprised when being found out , while someone not telling the truth will often fight tooth and nail to defend his UNTRUTH .

perhaps a little harsh but that`s the way i see it .
hbg


.from : U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Quote:
Selling A Convenient Untruth
When the Pentagon spun false tales of heroism, it cheated all the troops
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 10:58:52