9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 03:08 pm
Quote:
And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
February 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretary of Defense
Speaking at a "TownHall Meeting" held at Aviano Air Base, Italy

"I think the next few months will be crucial."
July 3, 2003
Senator Pat Roberts (Republican - Kansas)

"Looking at what we have today in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, and looking at the whole region and how infectious it can be for positive or for widespread trouble in the world, I think we may be going through a series of weeks and months that are crucial to the future history of freedom and stability. The determination of the British people, the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk success, if it was a success, probably saved not just Britain, but the Western world at that time. I am convinced that there is going to have to be a determination by the American people, military, particularly American military, quality and quantity, not just presence but capability, and a confidence in the Iraqi people that they can have a stable and representative government.
July 10, 2003
Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat - Missouri)
Speaking at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee

[Question: When you speak of victory, how do you define it today in Iraq?]

MCCAIN: Probably when the people of Iraq are governing themselves. That's probably the best benchmark, and that probably could happen sooner rather than later, as far as being directly related to the return of the basic services - the electricity, the water, the sanitation, the law enforcement - those kinds of things. … And I'm not sure how long it would be, but I don't think that we have time on our side. I think it's critical that we act quickly by sending more troops there. And if not, we run the risk of the Iraqi people turning against us.

[Question: Are you thinking 6 to 12 months? Or do you think that's dreaming at this point?]

MCCAIN: I don't know because I don't know how quickly we're going to act in the form of sending troops. I don't know how quickly we're going to be able to provide them with the security. So, it's sort of up to us. But I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical.
September 10, 2003
Sen. John McCain (Republican - Arizona)
Speaking on CNN's "American Morning"

"The next six months in Iraq - which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there - are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
November 30, 2003
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"The next six to seven months are critical."
December 1, 2003
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat - NY)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

"The important thing is to realize we are about to enter into a very critical six months … We have got to get on top of the security situation properly and we have got to manage the transition. Both of those things are going to be difficult."
January 4, 2004
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Speaking during a surprise visit to Iraq

"Iraq now faces a critical moment."
May 24, 2004
President Bush
Speaking at the United States Army War College

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of - I know a lot of these guys - reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
June 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on National Public Radio's "Fresh Air"

"The next few months will be critical as the new government must establish security, continue to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and prepare the Iraqi people for national elections scheduled for January 2005."
July 22, 2004
Senator Richard G. Lugar (Republican - Indiana)
Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
October 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation"

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
November 28, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"There are rare occasions when two distinct geopolitical processes reach a pivot point at the same time, that precise place where the evolution of a process takes a critical turn. Last week saw three such points. In Iraq, the security network around the guerrilla leadership appeared to be breaking wide open."
March 1, 2005
George Friedman, Stratfor

"As the political process evolves, further government victories could be in the offing. Intense negotiations on the formation of the Cabinet, involving the United Iraqi Alliance, Kurdish List, Sunnis and other factions, have already begun. With Sunnis incorporated into a new government, progress on the political front likely will lead to further success on the battlefield as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to keep pressure on the insurgents with raids, arrests and all-out offensive operations. These developments ultimately will support the U.S. strategy of turning the combat burden over to an emboldened and maturing Iraqi army."
March 23, 2005
Stratfor

"Washington has moved beyond the military stage of the U.S.-jihadist war and is now in the phase of negotiated settlements."
April 6, 2005
Stratfor

"I think the next nine months are critical."
June 29, 2005
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Speaking on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered"

"This attack probably will be instrumental in turning the Iraqis against the militants, especially the transnational jihadists who are not only seen as using the general insurgency in Iraq for their cause (which has very little to do with the Sunni community's grievances or Iraqi nationalism), but now seem to have reached the point where they will not shirk from killing children as part of their attack plans."
July 13, 2005
Stratfor

"I think the next 18 months are crucial."
July 18, 2005
General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

"I have long been invested with ensuring the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. We are nearing the resolution of that process, and the next months will be critical."
August 4, 2005
Ambassador John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Statement to the Security Council

"But the fact is these next six months are going to be very critical in Iraq, not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election, but also within that six months' period, we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves, governing themselves and supporting themselves."
August 18, 2005
Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep- Nebraska)
Speaking on CNN's "Situation Room"

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election - that's my own feeling - let alone the presidential one."
September 25, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press"

"The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens"
September 29, 2005
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

"… Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
September 28, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"And the developments over the next several months will be critical - as General Casey and General Abizaid and the secretary made very clear over the course of last week - as the constitutional referendum in the mid part of this month, the general elections in mid-December and then the subsequent formation of a new government all take place."
October 5, 2005
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Former Commander, Multi-National Transition Command Iraq and NATO Training Mission Iraq
News Briefing

As always, whenever the Bush administration helps to pull off an election in Iraq, you have to hand it to them. Poor job on occupation, no doubt, but this thing keeps muddling through. … Meanwhile, a lot of Sunnis are shifting from fighting the system altogether to working within the political process. This is crucial. … Iraq is doing just fine given all poorly planned occupation (F to the neocons, C+ to the officers doing their best in a crappy situation on the ground).
October 17, 2005
Thomas P. M. Barnett

"We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict. …

"To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately - I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say - No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. …

"To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. …"
October 26, 2005
Senator John Kerry (Democrat - Mass)
Speech at Georgetown University

"And we're seeing a lot of them [officials from the Iraqi government] because this is a critical time in Iraq going into the elections, and it is very important that these elections produce an outcome, that it reflects the will of the Iraqi people, that results in a government - that is broadly based, drawing from all elements of the Iraqi society, that gets stood up quickly and is a strong government that can take the kinds of difficult, economic and security decisions that the new government is going to have."
November 10, 2005
Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor
Comments at White House Press Briefing

"We've got, I think, six months."
Nov. 17, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

"Instead, we need to refocus our attention on our mission ?- of our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq. And there are two of them, in my view. One, we must ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war ?- emphasize "was not before the war" ?- a haven for terrorists, a jihadist stronghold. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that runs the risk of turning into a regional war. To accomplish that more limited mission and to begin redeploying our troops responsibly, it seems to me we have to make significant, measurable progress toward three goals, and you only have about the next six months to demonstrate that progress."
November 21, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations

"What the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the war and in U.S. policy toward the war. … The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. …"
November 21, 2005
George Friedman of Stratfor

"I served in the last year of World War II in the Navy. Franklin D. Roosevelt did just exactly that. In his fireside talks, he talked with the people, he did just that. I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period, as Joe and I agree, in this Iraqi situation to restore full sovereignty in that country and that enables them to have their own armed forces to maintain their sovereignty. …

[Question: "What happens if not enough Iraqis step forward to defend their country?"]

"At that point then we have to come to the realization that the program has not met the target and we have to determine what we're going to do. I would not want to posture what that decision would be. You'll have to wait. You shouldn't speculate. We'll have to wait for those six months."
November 27, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press"

"But it was necessary for the president to go out and reinforce to our troops and the other coalition forces and to the world that we have a resolve in these next four to six months in Iraq which are critical to bring about achievement of our goals. … We should not at this time in these critical four to six months be worrying about a timetable to withdraw or even talking about it."
November 30, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
PBS "Online Newhour"

"[The Iraq elections are] necessary, not sufficient … [the] next six months are going to tell the story. Two important things. What's the government going to look like? If it's Mr. Mahdi who ends up representing the SCIRI Party, who's aligned with Iran, then we got a real problem.
December 18, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation"

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
December 18, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation"

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election - you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
December 20, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on PBS's Charlie Rose Show

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it - and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
December 21, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"We have reached a crucial test in Iraq. … Whatever the explanation, this is the crucial moment. The elections were held and a political track was set. If this offensive derails the negotiations, it will be a defining moment in the war. If the negotiations go forward anyway - for any of the reasons discussed above - then the probability of a drawdown in the war in 2006 is very real. In the end, the reasons for the offensive are less clear than its potential significance. As they say, this is it."
January 6, 2006
Stratfor

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
January 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on the Oprah Winfrey Show

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
January 31, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS; program is uncertain and not been verified.

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
March 2, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's "Today"

"Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, told the Security Council in an open briefing this morning that the next six months in Iraq are going to be critical."
March 15, 2006
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=522

"If there is ever going to be an end game in Iraq, we are now in it. Operation Swarmer, launched Thursday, seemed designed to attack jihadists in the Sunni regions. The key to the U.S.-Sunni conversation has been getting the Sunnis into the political process and, as a result, getting the Sunnis to help liquidate the jihadists. If Swarmer was launched on the basis of Sunni intelligence, and if that intelligence turns out to be accurate, it will be a key event in recent Iraqi history. Those are big "ifs," of course. At the same time, if the Sunnis are joining the political process, then it is time for Iran to negotiate its final price on Iraq, and that appears now to be happening. Taken together, this is not the end, but the beginning of the end game, and success is not guaranteed."
"The Beginning of the End Game"
Mar 17, 2006
Stratfor

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
April 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on "CNN Late Edition with Wold Blitzer"

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months - probably sooner - whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
May 11, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on MSNBC's "Hardball"

"We would say that the next six weeks, rather than months, will show us where things are."
"Core Issues in Iraq"
May 22, 2006
Stratfor

"The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency - or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point - at least for the Americans."
"Break Point"
May 23, 2006
George Friedman, Stratfor

"The next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war. If the government fails to achieve this, it will have lost its opportunity."
June 7, 2006
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
Interviewed in Der Spiegel

"Second, international oil companies have been waiting for two things before investing in the Iraqi oil complex: a domestically chosen, internationally acceptable representative government, and an end to the insurgency. The first has happened; the second may finally be in sight."
"Iraq: The Implications of Al-Zarqawi's Death"
June 08, 2006
Stratfor

"If we are right and this is the tipping point, then things just tipped toward a political settlement. This will become clearer over the next few days. Violence will certainly not disappear, but it should reduce itself rather rapidly if the Sunni and Shiite leadership have put out the word. We thought this was the week for something to happen, and something has. Now to find out if it was what we were waiting for, and to find out if it will work."
Jun 09, 2006
"Al-Zarqawi and the Tipping Point"
Stratfor

"This is a decisive period for everyone and everyone knows it. The next six months will determine the future of Iraq."
October 5, 2006
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Official statement after a 39-nation meeting in Warsaw to discuss "the challenges facing Iraq and the US-led coalition."

"Time is short, level of violence is great and the margins of error are narrow. The government of Iraq must act. The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon and the citizens of the United States that it is deserving of continued support. The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services."
September 19, 2006
Lee Hamilton, former Congressman (Democrat - Indiana), member of the Iraq Study Group

"The next six months are likely to be critical in determining whether the situation in Iraq turns worse or whether we may yet salvage a measure of political stability that addresses our long-term security interests in the region."
Rep. Mark Udall (Democrat - Colorado)
June 22, 2006

The war will be won or lost, like it or not, fairly or unjustly, in the next six months in Baghdad.
Victor Davis Hanson,
"All Eyes on Baghdad"
May 2, 2007



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_iraq_series_2006_part_I.htm#quotes


Six months it is, ad infinitum?! Alternatives are 1. Cut and Run, and 2. Turn around and Walk - that's hoping there's no #3, getting blown out of there.....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 May, 2007 03:12 pm
It seems those "six months" gets stretched over and over again. Even Bush doesn't use that tactic; he just doesn't want any time lines.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 11:35 am
George Bush- terrorist greatest ally.

Quote:
Influx of Al Qaeda, money into Pakistan is seen
U.S. officials say the terrorist network's command base is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

May 20, 2007

WASHINGTON ?- A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads on his whereabouts, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of Al Qaeda operatives and money into Pakistan's tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al Qaeda's efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan's withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from the tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda's core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.

The evolving picture of Al Qaeda's finances is based in part on intelligence from an aggressive effort launched last year to intensify the pressure on Bin Laden and his senior deputies.

As part of a so-called surge in personnel, the CIA deployed as many as 50 clandestine operatives to Pakistan and Afghanistan ?- a dramatic increase over the number of CIA case officers permanently stationed in those countries. All of the new arrivals were given the primary objective of finding what counter-terrorism officials call "HVT1" and "HVT2." Those "high value target" designations refer to Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

The surge was part of a broader shake-up at the CIA designed to refocus on the hunt for Bin Laden, officials said. One former high-ranking agency official said the CIA had formed a task force that involved officials from all four directorates at the agency, including analysts, scientists and technical experts, as well as covert operators.

The officials were charged with reinvigorating a search that had atrophied when some U.S. intelligence assets and special forces teams were pulled out of Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for the war with Iraq.

Arduous search
Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence and military officials said, the surge has yet to produce a single lead on Bin Laden's or Zawahiri's location that could be substantiated.

"We're not any closer," said a senior U.S. military official who monitors the intelligence on the hunt for Bin Laden.

The lack of progress underscores the difficulty of the search more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Despite a $25-million U.S. reward, current and former intelligence officials said, the United States has not had a lead on Bin Laden since he fled American and Afghan forces in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in early 2002.

"We've had no significant report of him being anywhere," said a former senior CIA official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing U.S. intelligence operations. U.S. spy agencies have not even had information that "you could validate historically," the official said, meaning a tip on a previous Bin Laden location that could subsequently be verified.

President Bush is given detailed presentations on the hunt's progress every two to four months, in addition to routine counter-terrorism briefings, intelligence officials said.

The presentations include "complex schematics, search patterns, what we're doing, where the Predator flies," said one participant, referring to flights by unmanned airplanes used in the search. The CIA has even used sand models to illustrate the topography of the mountainous terrain where Bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

Still, officials said, they have been unable to answer the basic question of whether they are getting closer to their target.

"Any prediction on when we're going to get him is just ridiculous," said the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. "It could be a year from now or the Pakistanis could be in the process of getting him right now."

In a written response to questions from The Times, the CIA said it "does not as a rule discuss publicly the details of clandestine operations," but acknowledged it had stepped up operations against Bin Laden and defended their effectiveness.

"The surge has been modest in size, here and overseas, but has added new skills and fresh thinking to the fight against a resilient and adaptive foe," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in the statement. "It has paid off, generating more information about Al Qaeda and helping take terrorists off the street."

The CIA spies are part of a broader espionage arsenal aimed at Bin Laden and Zawahiri that includes satellites, electronic eavesdropping stations and the unmanned airplanes.

Pakistan pullout
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials involved in the surge said it had been hobbled by a number of other developments. Chief among them, they said, was Pakistan's troop pullout last year from border regions where the hunt has been focused.

Just months after the CIA deployed dozens of additional operatives to its station in Islamabad ?- as well as bases in Peshawar and other locations ?- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced "peace agreements" with tribal leaders in Waziristan.

Driven by domestic political pressures and rising anti-American sentiment, the agreements called for the tribes to rein in the activities of foreign fighters, and bar them from launching attacks in Afghanistan, in exchange for a Pakistani military pullback.

But U.S. officials said there was little evidence that the tribal groups had followed through.

"Everything was undermined by the so-called peace agreement in north Waziristan," said a senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for overseeing counter-terrorism operations. "Of all the things that work against us in the global war on terror, that's the most damaging development. The one thing Al Qaeda needs to plan an attack is a relatively safe place to operate."

Some in the administration initially expressed concern over the Pakistani move, but Bush later praised it, following a White House meeting with Musharraf.

The pullback took significant pressure off Al Qaeda leaders and the tribal groups protecting them. It also made travel easier for operatives migrating to Pakistan after taking part in the insurgency in Iraq.

Some of these veterans are leading training at newly established camps, and are positioned to become the "next generation of leadership" in the organization, said the former senior CIA official.

"Al Qaeda is dependent on a lot of leaders coming out of Iraq for its own viability," said the former official, who recently left the agency. "It's these sorts of guys who carry out operations."

The former official added that the resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan are "being schooled" by Al Qaeda operatives with experience fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The administration's concern was underscored when Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy CIA Director Stephen Kappes visited Musharraf in Pakistan in February to prod him to crack down on Al Qaeda and its training camps.

The Pakistani pullback also has reopened financial channels that had been constricted by the military presence.

The senior U.S. counter-terrorism official said there were "lots of indications they can move people in and out easier," and that operatives from Iraq often bring cash.

"A year ago we were saying they were having serious money problems," the official said. "That seems to have eased up."

The cash is mainly U.S. currency in relatively modest sums ?- tens of thousands of dollars. The scale of the payments suggests the money is not meant for funding elaborate terrorist plots, but instead for covering the day-to-day costs of Al Qaeda's command: paying off tribal leaders, hiring security and buying provisions.

Contributors mobilized
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, as the network's Iraq branch is known, has drawn increasingly large contributions from elsewhere in the Muslim world ?- largely because the fight against U.S. forces has mobilized donors across the Middle East, officials said.

"Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is the reason people are contributing again, with money and private contributions coming back in from the Gulf," said the senior U.S. counter-terrorism official. He added that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia also has become an effective criminal enterprise.

"The insurgents have great businesses they run: stealing cars, kidnapping people, protection money," the counter-terrorism official said. The former CIA official said the activity is so extensive that the "ransom-for-profit business in Iraq reminds me of Colombia and Mexico in the 1980s and '90s."

U.S. officials got a glimpse of the Al Qaeda leadership's financial dependency when American forces intercepted a lengthy letter Zawahiri sent to now-deceased Iraq insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in 2005. In the letter, Zawahiri alluded to financial difficulties, saying "the lines have been cut off," and asked Zarqawi for fresh funds.

"We need a payment while new lines are being opened," Zawahiri wrote, according to a translation released publicly by the U.S. government. "So, if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand, we'll be very grateful to you."

The payments appear to have given Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq new influence in the organization, officials said. In particular, officials noted that Zawahiri appears to have abandoned his effort to persuade Sunni Arab insurgents not to divide Muslims by striking Shiites, and has more recently moved closer to sanctioning such bloodshed.

U.S. officials believe they had Zawahiri in their sights on at least one occasion. Acting on reports that Zawahiri was to attend an Al Qaeda gathering in a remote village in northwest Pakistan in January 2006, the CIA launched a missile strike on the compound, missing Zawahiri but killing a senior Al Qaeda operations commander. U.S. officials believe Zawahiri changed plans at the last minute.

Within months of that strike, the CIA began sending dozens of additional case officers to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The impetus for the surge is unclear. Several former CIA officials said it was launched at the direction of former CIA Director Porter J. Goss, and that the White House had been pushing the agency to step up the effort to find Bin Laden.

But the CIA disputed those accounts, saying in its written statement that "this initiative was and is driven solely by operational considerations." The effort, according to CIA spokesman Gimigliano, grew out of an assessment in mid-2005 in which "the agency itself identified changes in the operational landscape against Al Qaeda."

Several months before the surge, the CIA disbanded a special unit known as "Alec Station" that had led the search for Bin Laden. At the time, the move was seen as a sign that the hunt was being downgraded, but officials said it was a prelude to a broader reorganization.

The surge included what one former CIA official described as a "new breed" of spy developed since the Sept. 11 attacks. These so-called "targeting officers" are given a blend of analytic and operational training to become specialists in sifting clues to the locations of high-value fugitives.

The CIA's ability to send spies into the tribal region is limited, officials said.

"We can't go into the tribal areas without protection," said the former CIA official who was involved in the planning of the surge. "For the most part they have to travel with [the Pakistan intelligence service] and their footprint is not small because they're worried about getting shot too."

Instead, the effort is designed to cultivate sources in the outer perimeters of the security networks that guard Bin Laden, and gradually work inward.

The aim, another former CIA official said, is "to find people who had access to people who had access to his movements. It's pretty basic stuff."

[email protected]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-binladen20may20,0,5307690,print.story?coll=la-home-center
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 03:33 pm
Quote:
Soft Targets
Al Qaeda's new strategy.
by Olivier Guitta
Daily Standard
05/18/2007 12:00:00 AM

WHILE THE April 11 suicide bombings in Algiers struck at hard targets--the government palace and a police station--soft targets are most likely the preferred point of attack for terrorists in the region.

Just a few weeks earlier, the U.S. Department of State had issued an updated travel warning for Algeria. It urged American citizens there to evaluate carefully the risk posed to their personal safety due to the increased frequency of small-scale terrorist attacks, including bombings, false roadblocks, kidnappings, ambushes, and assassinations. This warning is just the latest sign of a troublesome trend: terrorist groups now seem intent on striking at Western nationals.

Since the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) officially changed its name to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb late last year, it has made clear its intention to attack foreigners. The group's first such attack targeted a bus transporting Halliburton employees in December, killing one and injuring nine more. On March 3, the group staged another attack, this one targeting Russian contractors.

The CIA recently beefed up its presence in both Algeria and Morocco. And, most likely, it was CIA intelligence data that spurred U.S. embassy officials in Algiers to issue a specific warning on March 12 of a threat to aircraft transporting Western workers to Algeria. Incidentally, the two suicide attacks "foiled" (only the bombers died) in Casablanca on April 14 were aimed at the U.S. consulate and the American language Center.

Numerous Western governments have recently warned their citizens of potential attacks, and, according to

a recent article in the Moroccan Al Bayane, partially translated by The Croissant, Spanish officials in the Maghreb no longer allow visitors to carry their cell phones onto consular property. But Algeria and Morocco are not the only dangerous places for foreigners.

On February 26, al Qaeda murdered four French nationals in Medina, Saudi Arabia. This attack came on the heels of a February 8 message put online at the Sawt Al Jihad (The Voice of Jihad) website calling for "cleaning up the Arabic peninsula of the presence of the Crusaders." Sawt Al Jihad also posted a text in June 2006 entitled "How to kill a Westerner."

Since 2003, Saudi authorities have drastically increased security around public buildings and vital infrastructure making it much more difficult for al Qaeda to attack government targets. On March 7, Saudi authorities warned all embassies in that country of the likelihood of further attacks against Western targets in yet another indication that al Qaeda has changed its strategy in response to those new security measures. The group may also be focusing on soft targets, such as foreigners, in order to create panic in the Western community. This shift could have a great effect. Indeed, by pushing Westerners to leave, al Qaeda achieves two objectives, crippling the Saudi economy and purging the peninsula of infidels.

Still, al Qaeda remains popular among Saudis. Even Prince Nayef, the minister responsible for fighting terrorism, recently acknowledged: "We are facing 10,000 people potentially ready to commit a terrorist act and behind them one million sympathizers ready to help them."

The Saudi military, too, seems to be at the very least sympathetic to al Qaeda's hatred of foreigners. According to Le Figaro, the military will exempt from training with U.S. instructors those officers who are unable to bear the presence of "infidels."
The Muslim World League condemned the February 26 attack against those four French citizens on the basis that one should not kill Muslims--the French nationals were indeed Muslims. But issuing such a statement obviously implies that it is okay to kill infidels.

The New York Sun recently revealed that the Saudi Ministry of Education's website states as one of primary goals "to arouse the spirit of Islamic jihad in order to fight our enemies." And how could it be any other way when the minister of education once headed the Muslim World League.

In this environment, from the Maghreb to the Gulf, attacks against Western targets are only likely to increase in frequency.

Olivier Guitta is the founder of The Croissant, a foreign affairs and counterterrorism newsletter.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 04:29 pm
Just as long as al Qaida doesn't come to the US to fight their wars on our land, it's okay for most of the Middle East, Indonesia, and the Philippines to fall under the al Qaida influence. Bush strategy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 04:44 pm
Here's the latest in Lebanon.

May 20, 2007
Lebanese Troops Clash With Islamic Militants
By HASSAN M. FATTAH and NADA BAKRI
TRIPOLI, Lebanon, May 20 ?- Fierce clashes erupted between Lebanese Army soldiers and Islamic militants tied to Al Qaeda in the northern Lebanese town of Tripoli on Sunday, leaving 23 Lebanese soldiers and 17 militants dead and dozens injured in one of the most significant challenges to the army since the end of Lebanon's bloody civil war.

The conflagration threatened to develop into a major military campaign aimed at routing militants from Lebanon's Palestinian refugee camps, presenting the embattled government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora with a potential crisis with deep security implications.

Tensions rose further on Sunday night when a car bomb reportedly exploded in east Beirut.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 May, 2007 10:25 pm
Bombings kill 7 U.S. soldiers in Iraq
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 30 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Bombings killed seven U.S. soldiers in Baghdad and a southern city, the U.S. military said Sunday, and the country's Sunni vice president spoke out against a proposed oil law, clouding the future of a key benchmark for assuring continued U.S. support for the government.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 07:53 am
Prewar intelligence foretold Iraq upheaval
Prewar intelligence foretold Iraq upheaval
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
5/20/07

WASHINGTON ?- Two intelligence assessments from January 2003 predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent U.S. occupation of Iraq could lead to internal violence and provide a boost to Islamic extremists and terrorists, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials familiar with the prewar studies.

The two assessments, titled "Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq," were produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and will be a major part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's long-awaited Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. The assessments were delivered to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees before the war started.

The committee chairman, Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and the vice chairman, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., announced this month that the panel had asked Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to declassify the report for public release. Congressional sources said the two NIC assessments are to be declassified and would be part of a portion of the Phase II report that could be released this month.

The assessment on post-Saddam Iraq included judgments that, while Iraq was unlikely to split apart, there was a significant chance that domestic groups would fight one another and that ex-regime military elements could merge with terrorist groups to battle any new government. It even talked of guerrilla warfare, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials.

The second NIC assessment discussed "political Islam being boosted and the war being exploited by terrorists and extremists elsewhere in the region," one former senior analyst said. It also suggested that fear of U.S. military dominance and occupation of a Middle East country, one sacred to Islam, would attract foreign Islamic fighters to the area.

A former senior intelligence official said he was told by one CIA briefer after the NIC papers were given to top government officials that one ranking Defense Department official had said they were "too negative" and that the papers "did not see the possibilities" Saddam's removal would present.

In his book, "At the Center of the Storm," former CIA Director George Tenet discussed the NIC assessments as well as prewar intelligence analyses his agency prepared on the same issues. While Tenet admits the CIA expected Shiites in southern Iraq, "long oppressed by Saddam, to open their arms to anyone who removed him," he said agency analysts were "not among those who confidently expected coalition forces to be greeted as liberators."

Tenet writes that the initial good feeling among most Iraqis that Saddam was out of power "would last for only a short time before old rivalries and ancient ethnic tensions resurfaced." The former intelligence analyst said such views also reflected the views in the NIC paper on post-Saddam Iraq.

The NIC assessments also projected the view that a long-term Western military occupation would be widely unacceptable, particularly to the Iraqi military. It also said Iraqis would wait and see whether the new governing authority, whether foreign or Iraqi, would provide security and basic services such as electricity.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 08:41 am
So why did America and Britain invade Iraq? They knew almost for certain there were no wmd, so thats out. (The public were given a slightly different story of course). Bush has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, thats out. They knew it would likely make the threat from terrorism worse, so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water. Freedom for the Iraqi people? Sure Saddam was bad but the worst of his excesses happened when he was our "friend". We only started to fret about the poor oppressed Iraqis when Saddam officially became our enemy. Bringing democracy? I must admit to falling for this one myself. The fact is Bush and Blair were warned of potential chaos in Iraq after the invasion. But they invaded anyway. There has been chaos, and worse. And at huge cost. All this could have been forseen, and in fact was forseen. Bush didnt wake up one morning, decided he felt particularly powerful that day, and started looking for a country to invade. There must have been a pretty powerful and persuasive reason for Bush and Blair to have done what they did. The fact that we and the Irai people are paying a terrible price for that decision, that Iraq has turned into a nightmare from which we cant wake up, makes the search for the real reasons for the invasion even more pressing. Blair is going now. Soon Bush will have gone. Iraq wont be their problem any more, it will be ours to pay the cost in blood and treasure for their folly. I want an answer to my simple question.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:18 am
How do you come about these conclusions?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:22 am
McGentrix wrote:
How do you come about these conclusions?


By simply reading the news and post war reports with his eyes wide open. You should try it some time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:30 am
Then you guys must be reading some different news and post war reports then the rest of us.

They did not know "knew almost for certain there were no wmd", Bush never tried to associate Saddam to 9/11 other then express concerns for further terror attacks, Iraq is a central front in the war on terror "so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water" is just plain wrong.

Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy are mere benefits we provided in making our country safer from future terror attacks. You guys should read about the Bush Doctrine.

If you want a clear answer to your question, read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

It explains it pretty well.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:36 am
Pretty much everything in your post is 100% untrue.

Quote:

Then you guys must be reading some different news and post war reports then the rest of us.


Yes, we call it the 'actual news.' And which post-war reports showed the WMD they found, and all the peace that they've achieved?

Quote:

They did not know "knew almost for certain there were no wmd"


BS. They knew that they didn't know for certain, that there was conflicting evdience. The conflicting evidence was never given to the American people, who were told it was a 'slam dunk.'

Quote:
Bush never tried to associate Saddam to 9/11 other then express concerns for further terror attacks


Again, BS. Bush uses the tactic of Conflation to merge the two in listener's minds constantly. Cheney is even worse about it.

Quote:

Iraq is a central front in the war on terror "so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water" is just plain wrong.


Only because we made it that way. And, in large part, Iraqis haven't kicked out the terrorists b/c they agree with fighting the occupying forces. This is BS.

Quote:

Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy are mere benefits we provided in making our country safer from future terror attacks. You guys should read about the Bush Doctrine.


Except, it isn't going to happen. They aren't going to have more freedom then they did before, they aren't safer, and neither are we. This war has strengthed AQ, not weakened it; provided them with more money and recruits, not less. How can you call an action which gives the enemy greater strength, and angers more people in the region (giving him more recruits), to be one which makes our country 'safer?' Again, BS.

You live in a fantasy world, McG, in which the things you've written are even remotely true. They aren't, and you really should wake up to this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:48 am
McGentrix wrote:
Then you guys must be reading some different news and post war reports then the rest of us.

They did not know "knew almost for certain there were no wmd", Bush never tried to associate Saddam to 9/11 other then express concerns for further terror attacks, Iraq is a central front in the war on terror "so defeating terrorism doesnt hold water" is just plain wrong.

Freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy are mere benefits we provided in making our country safer from future terror attacks. You guys should read about the Bush Doctrine.

If you want a clear answer to your question, read the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

It explains it pretty well.


What Cycloptichorn said and that Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed forces against Iraq ain't worth the paper it was written on. They were all wrong. They should have known better had they bothered to double check anything they were told by this bunch of lying crooks currently in office.

(I'm including the democrats. It is this issue alone which makes it hard for me to vote since most of the democrats running for office went right along with the "bush doctrine." (sounds like a religious screed) ) I just have to hold my nose and vote the better of two evils.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 09:56 am
revel has it spot on. The problem was the naivete of congress to trust the administration to "tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth." For their failure in not double-checking what they were told, they must also accept some of the blame for this mess in Iraq - for "authorizing" the war.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:09 am
I'm sorry, but I have stopped reading cycloptichorn's rantings because I find them pedantic and tiresome.

Upon reviewing his post I find my choice to be wise.

It's easy to look at the results of the war and see where mistakes have been made and where intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Much like a scientific experiment where the results prove or disprove the working hypothesis.

Results do not make the hypothesis a lie though and that seems to be what so many anti-Bushites want to do . Prove that he lied because the war showed them to be wrong... doesn't make any sense.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:11 am
McG, It's because you have a "mental block."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:12 am
McGentrix wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have stopped reading cycloptichorn's rantings because I find them pedantic and tiresome.

Upon reviewing his post I find my choice to be wise.

It's easy to look at the results of the war and see where mistakes have been made and where intelligence turned out to be incorrect. Much like a scientific experiment where the results prove or disprove the working hypothesis.

Results do not make the hypothesis a lie though and that seems to be what so many anti-Bushites want to do . Prove that he lied because the war showed them to be wrong... doesn't make any sense.


The problem with your screed doesn't lie in the past, but the present.

Iraq isn't getting any better and it won't any time soon. There isn't any 'bringing freedom' to the Iraqi people. Al Qaeda isn't weakened by the fight in Iraq.

Forget about the past - you're wrong about what's happening right now, and what that means for us. But what's surprising about that? You've been wrong about this same stuff for years.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 10:13 am
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)

Legal commentary from FindLaw's Writ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW DICTIONARY


(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 May, 2007 11:13 am
mcg wrote :

Quote:
... where intelligence turned out to be incorrect....


from wiki :

Quote:
Intelligence is a property of mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn


apparently there was NO "intelligence" in the "intelligence" .
hbg
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/11/2026 at 06:56:48