THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Ican; if you think it is going so well and it is worth being there; why aren't you there yourself? Even if you are too old (no offense; many of us are) to be in the service; I am sure there is something you can do rather than to continue on day after day advocating this senseless drain of other people's lives and resources.

If you don't get your news from 'newspeak '; tell me; where do you get your news? What criterion do you use to gauge whether it is 'newspeak' or real news? If it agrees with what you think; it ain't newspeak; if it don't agree with you it is newspeak?

Ican we can not 'exterminate' every single AQ or insurgent inside Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps for a time we can lay them low; but as they have shown repeatedly; they will simply retreat; regroup and recruit again and again which is why more diplomacy and acceptance is needed rather than just shooting and killing people.

What makes you think "diplomacy and acceptance" are the solutions to the problem? It seems to me that with that approach, al-Qaeda would multiply even faster. Besides Roosevelt tried the "diplomatic and acceptance" approach with both Hitler and Hirohito. It's obvious that neither one worked. Both Bush Sr. and Clinton tried it with Israel and Palestinian Arabs. It obviously didn't work. Bush Sr. and Clinton tried it with Saddam. It obviously didn't work. Bush Jr. tried it with Saddam. It obviously didn't work. Bush Jr. tried it again with Israel and Palestinian Arabs. It obviously didn't work. Bush Jr. continues to try it with Israel and Palestinian Arabs. It obviously isn't going to work. Clinton and later Bush Jr. tried it with the Taliban before 9/11. It obviously didn't work. We might just as well try it with a malignant cancer. It obviously won't work. It's crazy to keep trying the same thing over and over expecting a different result. No! Only extermination works with cancer. Only extermination will work with al-Qaeda, if we persist and continue to enlist more middle easterners to join the fight.

We should be concentrating on getting our people out of the Middle East and concentrate on alternative sources of energy so we don't have to fight and kill people for oil and let them live however they want to in peace. Maybe then we will not have to worry about another 9/11 happening just around the corner. I am against the whole strategy of fighting terrorism with the military. We should be using intelligence more; we should be talking with other nations and tracking money and we shouldn't be interfering with their countries all the time making more recruits for terrorist.

That "maybe" has proved a failure too many times to justify trying it again.

I was in favor of the Afghanistan war; but we bungled that and then abandoned it to fight a vanquished enemy. Now the Taliban has resurfaced again and is control of most of the country. Which just goes to show that it just ain't going to work for western nations trying to occupy and manage Middle East nations. They merely hold on to fight another day no matter how long they have to hold to do it. We are not going to exterminate all of them and as long as there is one standing that one will just regroup again with others.

Pressure for Results: The Politics of Tallying the Number of Iraqis Who Return Home

Last week, Iraq's minister of displacement and migration, Abdul-Samad Rahman Sultan, announced that 1,600 Iraqis were returning every day, which works out to a similar, or perhaps slightly larger, monthly total.

But in interviews, officials from the ministry acknowledged that the count covered all Iraqis crossing the border, not just returnees. "We didn't ask them if they were displaced and neither did the Interior Ministry," said Sattar Nowruz, a spokesman for the Ministry of Displacement and Migration.

As a result, the tally included Iraqi employees of The New York Times who had visited relatives in Syria but were not among the roughly two million Iraqis who have fled the country.

Maybe we can win and succeed without actually exterminating al-Qaeda, but we won't accomplish that unless al-Qaeda is convinced that their surrender is the only thing that will stop their extermination.

1) Bush received intel briefing on Aug. 6, 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US." The briefing specifically warned to "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," particularly targeted at New York.

2) CIA Director George Tenet briefing Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials on July 10, 2001 about a specific urgent and looming threat from al Qaeda.

3) An FBI agent in Phoenix sent a memo to FBI headquarters on July 10, 2001, which advised of the "possibility of a coordinated effort" by bin Laden to send students to the United States to attend civil aviation schools.

Military wants more views on Iraq reports

WASHINGTON -- Top military leaders at the Pentagon want to avoid a repeat of the last public assessment of the Iraq war -- with its relentless focus on the opinion of a single commander -- when the Bush administration makes its next crucial decision about the size of the U.S. force.

Concerned about the war's effect on public trust in the military, the leading officials said they hoped the next major assessment early next year would not place as much emphasis on the views of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who in September spent dozens of hours in testimony before Congress and in televised interviews...

Although support for the military remains high, there is a basis for such concerns. An annual Gallup poll in June found that 69% of the public had confidence in the military, down from 82% in 2003.

In response, some officers are taking steps to shore up public support, saying that the military must be accountable for its actions and that officers must be apolitical and honest in their public comments...

Another senior military official said the amount of focus on Petraeus' assessment was "over the top."

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

As part of the package, the Iraqis want an end to the current U.N.-mandated multinational forces mission, and also an end to all U.N.-ordered restrictions on Iraq's sovereignty.

Iraq has been living under some form of U.N. restriction since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the officials said.

U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal _ which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year _ to be the last.

The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

The two Iraqi officials, who are from two different political parties, spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive. Members of parliament were briefed on the plan during a three-hour closed-door meeting Sunday, during which lawmakers loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr objected to the formula.

When asked about the plan, U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo noted that Iraqi officials had expressed a desire for a strategic partnership with the U.S. in a political declaration in August and an end to the U.N.-mandated force.

"Thereafter then, the question becomes one of bilateral relationships between Iraq and the countries of the multinational forces," she said. "At that point we need to be considering long-term bilateral relationships and we're following the Iraqi thinking on this one and we agree with their thinking on this and we'll be looking at setting up a long-term partnership with different aspects to it, political, economic, security and so forth."

She said any detailed discussion of bases and investment preferences was "way, way, way ahead of where we are at the moment."

The Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops, down from the current figure of more than 160,000.

The Iraqi target date for a bilateral agreement on the new relationship would be July, when the U.S. intends to finish withdrawing the five combat brigades sent in 2007 by President Bush as part of the troop buildup that has helped curb sectarian violence.

On Sunday, Iraq's Shiite vice president hinted at such a formula, saying the government will link discussions on the next extension of the U.N. mandate to an agreement under which Iraq will gain full sovereignty and "full control over all of its resources and issues."

Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said Iraq wanted an "equal footing" with the U.S. on security issues as a sovereign country so Iraqi could "have relations with other states with sovereignty and interests."

He said the government would announce within days a "declaration of intent" that would not involve military bases but would raise "issues on organizing the presence of the multinational forces and ending their presence on Iraqi soil."

One official said the Iraqis expect objections from Iraq's neighbors. Iran and Syria will object because they oppose a U.S. presence in the region.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not like the idea of any reduction in their roles as Washington's most important Arab partners.

ican711nm wrote:

Maybe we can win and succeed without actually exterminating al-Qaeda, but we won't accomplish that unless al-Qaeda is convinced that their surrender is the only thing that will stop their extermination.

Yea; any day now I expect AQ to throw up their hands to save their own lives.

Revel, of course you don't expect that and neither do I! I expect that won't happen in less than 25 years, if it were to happen at all. Regardless, it is true that "diplomacy and acceptance" will not ever stop al-Qaeda from mass murdering non-murderers. And, it is true that the only thing that will stop al-Qaeda from mass murdering non-murderers is either their extermination or their surrender. There are no other alternatives. To think otherwise is to fantasize.

...


Acting all macho and invading countries who posed no threat has not solved anything either as the ones who were behind 9/11 are still at large and AQ has grown even larger.

I agree that the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq posed no threat to us. It was and is the existence of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in those countries that posed repeatedly demonstrated threats to us.

So you think al-Qaeda has grown even larger than it was in Afghanistan and Iraq since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How large do you think they were before we invaded? How large do you think they are now? How much larger or smaller do you think they would be now if we had not invaded and instead resorted exclusively to "diplomacy and acceptance"?

just started reading "indian summer - the secret history of the end of an empire" .
even before 1850 the british were fighting the tribes in the north-west frontier region (now part of pakistan) , many of them coming from afghanistan .
we all know what happened eventually : the british left "india" , pakistan separated from india , and now pakistan has been left to deal with the frontier tribes .
to avoid being ground up piece-by-piece in that region , pakistan has essentially decided to abondon the north-west frontier region to the various tribes . there are even border posts established many miles WITHIN pakistan territory and anyone wanting to cross that line into the frontier region is being advised that pakistan army and police WILL NOT CROSS THAT INTERNAL BORDER . anyone crossing into that frontier territory is advised that they are on their own .
those frontier tribes are a fertile ground to provide plenty of fighters to confront the INFIDELS in any muslim country .
even the SENLIS group has stated that unless NATO can at least double the troop strength and provide MONEY , MONEY and more MONEY there is not much hope of bringing peace to the frontier region , afghanistan - and probably the rest of the restless areas in the middle east , such as iraq and iran .
hbg

link :
REPORT BY THE SENLIS COUNCIL

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Maybe we can win and succeed without actually exterminating al-Qaeda, but we won't accomplish that unless al-Qaeda is convinced that their surrender is the only thing that will stop their extermination.

Yea; any day now I expect AQ to throw up their hands to save their own lives.

Revel, of course you don't expect that and neither do I! I expect that won't happen in less than 25 years, if it were to happen at all. Regardless, it is true that "diplomacy and acceptance" will not ever stop al-Qaeda from mass murdering non-murderers. And, it is true that the only thing that will stop al-Qaeda from mass murdering non-murderers is either their extermination or their surrender. There are no other alternatives. To think otherwise is to fantasize.

...


Acting all macho and invading countries who posed no threat has not solved anything either as the ones who were behind 9/11 are still at large and AQ has grown even larger.

I agree that the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq posed no threat to us. It was and is the existence of al-Qaeda sanctuaries in those countries that posed repeatedly demonstrated threats to us.

So you think al-Qaeda has grown even larger than it was in Afghanistan and Iraq since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How large do you think they were before we invaded? How large do you think they are now? How much larger or smaller do you think they would be now if we had not invaded and instead resorted exclusively to "diplomacy and acceptance"?

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity, The New York Times reports that the NIE document, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," says the war plays a much more direct role in the spread of Islamic radicalism around the world than has previously been indicated by the White House, or in a recent report by the US House intelligence committee.

canada's chief of defence staff , general rick hillier , surprised his masters (the current conservative government) by giving a press conference and saying that "afghan security is ten years off" .
hillier is known is for speaking his mind without checking with the government first
the current canadian committment is to end in 2009 but the government has suggested an extension to 2011 . hillier's comments indicate "not before 2017 - if then " .
it'll be a difficult topic for the canadian government - but also NATO - to deal with . i don't think the electorate of any country likes the idea of hearing that "maybe in ten years we'll perhaps be successful " - not exactly a vote getter
hbg

Quote:
October 25, 2007

Afghan military needs 10 more years of help: Hillier

By Bill Graveland, THE CANADIAN PRESS



Gen. Rick Hillier told reporters in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Thursday, that the Afghanistan mission could use one more battle group to help control the war torn country. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Bill Graveland
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - An army isn't built overnight and in the case of Afghanistan there's little chance its military will be ready to safeguard national security on its own within the next decade, says Canada's top soldier.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, made the observation Thursday as he concluded a three-day whirlwind visit to meet with commanders and troops in the field in war-torn Kandahar province.

His frank assessment may come as a disappointment to those hoping the Afghan army may soon be able to operate on its own and keep Taliban insurgents in check, thus allowing Canadian troops to go home.

"I think most Canadians, living in the incredible country that we have, don't always see all the complexities of trying to rebuild a country and, in some cases, build a country from the 25 years of destruction that took place in Afghanistan," Hillier told reporters at Kandahar Airfield.

The Afghan soldiers that have been trained by Canadian and allied forces so far are "top-notch," Hillier said. But he noted it takes about three years to train a single battalion - 500 to 600 troops.

"You just don't build that overnight and the international community will have to be involved for some time to see this through to the final level where you've got a government that works effectively," Hillier said.



After years of work and training, there are about two battalions of Afghan soldiers in Kandahar province. Overall, there's a total of about 38,000 Afghan troops in the country. It may sound good on paper but the number is only about half of what is needed for Afghanistan to provide its own security.

"An army is what's required to allow them to keep their security, so that's a long term project," Hillier said.

"It's going to take 10 years or so just to work through and build an army to whatever the final number that Afghanistan will have, and make them professional and let them meet their security demands here."

Hillier's remarks echo those from other NATO leaders who have said Afghanistan will have to be a longterm commitment for members of the alliance.

Canada has about 2,500 troops serving with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. Its mission is to help the Kabul government assert its authority across thefractured country and overcome the security challenges posed by Taliban insurgents, rival warlords and narcotics kingpins.

Most of the Canadians are in Kandahar province, a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan where some of the the bloodiest fighting has taken place.

Since 2002, 71 Canadian military personnel and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan. The Canadian government is under public and opposition pressure to bring the troops home when the current mandate of the Afghan mission expires in February 2009 - or even earlier.

"Canada will decide whatever role it's going to play," Hillier said. "The panel is in place and the government will make its decisions."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed a five-person panel, headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, to make recommendations on the future of the mission. The range of options includes the continued training of the Afghan army and police, and withdrawing altogether.

But the Harper government's throne speech indicates it wants Canada's direct involvement in Afghanistan to continue until 2011.

In the short-term, Hillier is hoping to get additional support from other NATO allies in terms of helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and more troops.

"What would be best here would be another manoeuvre battalion group to give us the flexibility to be able to ... keep a footprint in an area where we've been until the Afghan police and army can take that area over by themselves," Hillier said.

"That will allow us to manoeuvre off to other areas where the Taliban are slightly stronger, and put them on the back foot in those other areas."

"With just the one battle group here, even with the Afghan National Army forces and the police we are now getting here, we still do not have all the capabilities that we have to do."


source :
TEN MORE YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN

...

ican711nm wrote:

...

So you think al-Qaeda has grown even larger than it was in Afghanistan and Iraq since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. How large do you think they were before we invaded? How large do you think they are now? How much larger or smaller do you think they would be now if we had not invaded and instead resorted exclusively to "diplomacy and acceptance"?

US intelligence report: Iraq war breeding more terrorists

Quote:

A classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity, The New York Times reports that the NIE document, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," says the war plays a much more direct role in the spread of Islamic radicalism around the world than has previously been indicated by the White House, or in a recent report by the US House intelligence committee.

Or, How about concluding that the growth of al-Qaeda after our invasions has caused our post invasion problems to become more difficult?

I'm happy to conclude that, as it was the obvious and predictable - and predicted - response to our actions in the region.

Cycloptichorn

ican :

you might find the comments by canada's chief of defence staff , general rick hillier , more to your liking - even though the canadian conservative government felt that the good general had kicked them in the ... posterior :wink:

...

Quote:

"It's going to take 10 years or so just to work through and build an army to whatever the final number that Afghanistan will have, and make them professional and let them meet their security demands here."

...
source :
TEN MORE YEARS IN AFGHANISTAN

Quote:

Or, How about concluding that the growth of al-Qaeda after our invasions has caused our post invasion problems to become more difficult?

I'm happy to conclude that, as it was the obvious and predictable - and predicted - response to our actions in the region.

Cycloptichorn

Apparently none of us can make quotes today. Check again I fixed it before this post!

It isn't 'optimism,' it's something which isn't going to happen. That's the whole point; we are not going to spend an unlimited amount of money on the region just to satisfy the fears of old white men...

Cycloptichorn