Intel Professionals: Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation

[Drummond]

I say they both lied.
And there's always a choice.
Always
and Iraq Certainly wasn't a "terrorist" threat or a foreign military threat to the U.S.. period.
nieher is Syria.
Both Assad and Saddam were/are fighting the brand of terrorist that we're told attacked on 911. Wahabi Saudi terrorist on the planes on 911 then and Wahabi Saudi "Syrian" rebels in Syria now.


IMO Bush wasn't naive. No ones focus was on AQ at the time. But i think his and the countries response was naive. We reacted as if AQ was a sovereign state rather than a criminal mercenary cult.
Trump has NO excuse, since he's been in office HE'S ordered drone strikes that has killed nearly as many innocent children. How many pictures of those children moved his heart?




I'm sorry i disagree strongly, he didn't have to do JACK.
Any wise leader would 1st make SURE exactly what happen BEFORE any knee jerk emotional reaction. He RIGHTLY chastised OBAMA that attacking Syria had NO good options. and that doing it without congress was unconstitutional. All he's showing is that his words one day mean NOTHING. the excuses that you're providing for him now may flow out his own or his spokespeople mouths but they have the SAMe weight as his previous. He could change his mind and do something else, and slap new words around that to justify it.

as far as Obama NOT reacting is concerned AGAIN the investigation found that the REBELS did the attack in 2013 so WHY was it weak for him not to attack. PLUS he and Putin got Assad to turn over TONS of chemical weapons.
What has this missile strike accomplished? It left the airfield fully functional. Assad is still alive and the AQ ISIS terrorist rebels are now poised to have U.S. cover AGAIN , and it's put us at the brink of WW3.


are we the world police? Did Trump mean america 1st AT ALL?
Has NK sent terrorist here? have they even attacked SOUTH KOREA?
They can't even feed their own people or keep the lights on in that country.
not every problem ... if we feel compelled to deal with them all... is nail that the U.S. military is supposed to handle.
It's not what most people voted for
It's not what he ran on
It's the same Hillary's and Lindsey Graham's insane neo-con Neo-lib military interventionist foreign policy that has back fired for the past 25 years.

There's some typical bog-standard Leftie thinking in all of this.

.. where to start .. ?

Saddam's Iraq WAS a threat to the entire West. He was known to have terrorist links (he even bankrolled Hamas !). Had he not been dealt with, this would've sent a terrible message to all rogue States (present AND future), telling them that there will be no consequences to stockpiling WMD's, because nobody will MEANINGFULLY investigate, nobody will actually STOP you from doing so, nobody will give you cause to think again !!

There is indeed a choice. You can do nothing, then, one day, wake up to 'wonder' why, suddenly, the world's so much less safe a place to live in. A responsible President, commanding the power that the American one does, uses his power to prevent such dangers from ever growing, to threaten his country's way of life.

This may not be the Leftie way, though. But some of us have a more responsible mindset .. 'sorry'.

Assad, Saddam .. did they never themselves commit atrocities ? Were / are they two leaders who'd never launched WMD attacks on their OWN people ?? Do they, therefore, NOT deserve, in Leftie eyes, to be accountable for such actions ??

As for 'NK' .. the belligerence of that regime, there, is surely proven ? How many more missile 'tests' do they have to carry out, how much more of a refinement of their capabilities should they have the time and opportunity to make, before, FINALLY, somebody wakes up to their being an ever-growing threat ??!?

Revelarts, I find your 'head in the sand' attitude incredible. NOT a surprise .. as, after all, you're thinking like a Leftie. But incredible, nonetheless.

Some of us face reality, and want to pre-empt growing threats and dangers by acting to remedy them. It is no less than thoroughly responsible to do so !!

[revelarts]

There's some typical bog-standard Leftie thinking in all of this.

.. where to start .. ?

Saddam's Iraq WAS a threat to the entire West. He was known to have terrorist links (he even bankrolled Hamas !). Had he not been dealt with, this would've sent a terrible message to all rogue States (present AND future), telling them that there will be no consequences to stockpiling WMD's, because nobody will MEANINGFULLY investigate, nobody will actually STOP you from doing so, nobody will give you cause to think again !!

There is indeed a choice. You can do nothing, then, one day, wake up to 'wonder' why, suddenly, the world's so much less safe a place to live in. A responsible President, commanding the power that the American one does, uses his power to prevent such dangers from ever growing, to threaten his country's way of life.

This may not be the Leftie way, though. But some of us have a more responsible mindset .. 'sorry'.

Assad, Saddam .. did they never themselves commit atrocities ? Were / are they two leaders who'd never launched WMD attacks on their OWN people ?? Do they, therefore, NOT deserve, in Leftie eyes, to be accountable for such actions ??

As for 'NK' .. the belligerence of that regime, there, is surely proven ? How many more missile 'tests' do they have to carry out, how much more of a refinement of their capabilities should they have the time and opportunity to make, before, FINALLY, somebody wakes up to their being an ever-growing threat ??!?

Revelarts, I find your 'head in the sand' attitude incredible. NOT a surprise .. as, after all, you're thinking like a Leftie. But incredible, nonetheless.

Some of us face reality, and want to pre-empt growing threats and dangers by acting to remedy them. It is no less than thoroughly responsible to do so !!

Drummond I know you're committed to your views. but i will ask you to answer me a few questions.

Did Saddam attack the U.S. On 911?
Did anyone from Iraq attack the US on 911 or ever?

Does Saudi Arabi have "terrorist links"?
Does Turkey have "terrorist links"?
Does Pakistan "terrorist links"?
Have you ever OBJECTIVELY reviewed the list of countries that commit atrocities?

I was going to ask you
if there are ANY OTHER choices besides the Military invasion of nations or "doing nothing"?
But i don't think you can conceive of any. Or conceive of anything else that will "solve" the problem to your satisfaction and that's truly sad.


Finally I'd like to hope that you'd acknowledge one thing at least.
the FACT that the "WAR" on terror has generated more terrorist and more counties that a under terrorist banners than when it began. Iraq is riddled with terrorist that weren't there before. Libya has AQ flags flying over the capital, Syria has had AQ flags flying over cities and Christians and NON-SAUDI/WAHABIST muslims have had their heads cut off for the pass several years. But pre-Syrian"rebels" Christians and muslims lived in Syria in relative peace. Yemen is thick with terrorist. Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all been caught harboring, financing and training the WORSE of terrorist.. to send to Syria ..and to.... where next Drummond?

I suspect that you can not translate what i'm saying into the mental framework of the world that you have, so you'll either dismiss it or blame the inconstancies and problems on the "the left" and be done with it.

but whatever the case, I think we'll just have to disagree.

[Drummond]

Drummond I know you're committed to your views. but i will ask you to answer me a few questions.

Did Saddam attack the U.S. On 911?
Did anyone from Iraq attack the US on 911 or ever?

No, and no, in that order ...

However, Saddam DID shelter Zarqawi, a leading Al Qaeda figure ...so you can't claim that he had no friendly links with Al Q.

Does Saudi Arabi have "terrorist links"?

Yes and no. Ignoring the fact of where bin Laden came from (.. you'll need to do that, of course ..) ...

http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-ara...s-to-terrorism

With the end of the Cold War, the most persuasive reasons for maintaining the marriage of convenience with Saudi Arabia disappeared. With the September 11 attacks, the returns on this partnership went from zero to negative. The Saudis have become the friends of our enemies and the enemies of our friends. Bin Laden is an extension of Saudi foreign policy. To be fair, the Saudis don't quite know how to deal with the monster they've created – so far they've avoided tough choices. As long as the benefits of sponsoring terror are enormous and the costs of sponsoring terror are negligible, they will not take decisive action. The US must therefore make the costs of funding Wahhabi extremism terribly high, while making the benefits slim pickings.

I'll be fair .. Saudi Arabia has been tough on terrorists, of late. This is encouraging. Nonetheless ... Saudi Arabia is the chief source of the Wahhabi 'variant' of Islam, an extremist version of it. Terrorists take to it like a duck to water.

Does Turkey have "terrorist links"?

Funny you should ask ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-...15-7?r=US&IR=T

A US-led raid on the compound housing the Islamic State's "chief financial officer" produced evidence that Turkish officials directly dealt with ranking ISIS members, Martin Chulov of the Guardian reported recently.

The officer killed in the raid, Islamic State official Abu Sayyaf, was responsible for directing the terror army's oil and gas operations in Syria. The Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) earns up to $10 million a month selling oil on black markets.

Documents and flash drives seized during the Sayyaf raid reportedly revealed links "so clear" and "undeniable" between Turkey and ISIS "that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara," senior Western official familiar with the captured intelligence told the Guardian.

This is what they told THE GUARDIAN. So, you know 'It Must Be True' ...

Shall I continue ?

Does Pakistan "terrorist links"?

You mean, apart from allowing bin Laden his own compound to stay at, for YEARS .. ?

Oh, well .. let's see ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakist...ored_terrorism

Pakistan's tribal region along the border of Afghanistan has been claimed to be a "haven for terrorists" by western media and the United States Defense Secretary. According to an analysis published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution in 2008, Pakistan was, "with the possible exception of Iran, perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups... aiding groups that pose a direct threat to the United States." Daniel Byman, an author, also wrote that, "Pakistan is probably 2008's most active sponsor of terrorism".

NEED I SAY MORE ?

Have you ever OBJECTIVELY reviewed the list of countries that commit atrocities?

Have YOU ?

I was going to ask you
if there are ANY OTHER choices besides the Military invasion of nations or "doing nothing"?
But i don't think you can conceive of any. Or conceive of anything else that will "solve" the problem to your satisfaction and that's truly sad.

Well now, a Leftie would claim that you could 'negotiate' with aggressors. But it doesn't take much reflection to dismiss that as impractical, bordering on the comically absurd.

Could the Taliban have been negotiated with, to give up bin Laden ? GW Bush DID give them that opportunity, by the way. They ignored it .. of course ...

Have you ever heard of an Islamic terrorist who could be persuaded to renounce his terrorism, or even 'just' so much as 'consider' renouncing violence ?

It's in the nature of the problem that the aggressors we're talking about won't consider anything LESS than force. They respect nothing else. If you think otherwise ... I look forward to your evidence !!

Finally I'd like to hope that you'd acknowledge one thing at least.
the FACT that the "WAR" on terror has generated more terrorist and more counties that a under terrorist banners than when it began. Iraq is riddled with terrorist that weren't there before. Libya has AQ flags flying over the capital, Syria has had AQ flags flying over cities and Christians and NON-SAUDI/WAHABIST muslims have had their heads cut off for the pass several years. But pre-Syrian"rebels" Christians and muslims lived in Syria in relative peace. Yemen is thick with terrorist. Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all been caught harboring, financing and training the WORSE of terrorist.. to send to Syria ..and to.... where next Drummond?

Correction: Obama's much-announced withdrawal of troops from Iraq was the very making of ISIS. American troops moved out. ISIS moved in !

The big problem with the War on Terror has been that it's been RELAXED. Consequently, terrorists from ISIS and other groups have had far less pressure on them ... they've been given the gift of a 'breather', and of course, they've used the opportunity to enhance their capabilities.

Obama must be proud !!

I suspect that you can not translate what i'm saying into the mental framework of the world that you have, so you'll either dismiss it or blame the inconstancies and problems on the "the left" and be done with it.

Bog-standard Leftieism IS distinctive !! What helps to make it so is its weird belief that realities just don't matter. Lefties see the world as they choose, and not as it IS. Their ideological opposites are far more realistic.

but whatever the case, I think we'll just have to disagree.

Not at all !! You could just give up on your Leftie idealism, and deal with the world in ITS terms, instead ...

... how about that ???

[Balu]

Hundreds poisoned in US-led coalition’s strike on IS depot in Deir ez-Zor

World
April 13, 13:20 UTC+3
According to the Syrian army command, hundreds of people died from poisoning ...

Well... The USA confirmed that it was their strike. Question - which American objectives MUST be the the targets for Russian cruise missiles strikes?

[revelarts]

No, and no, in that order ...
However, Saddam DID shelter Zarqawi, a leading Al Qaeda figure ...so you can't claim that he had no friendly links with Al Q.

"shelter"? if that's the guy i remember he lived in Iraq hiding in the hinterlands but he was not a guest of Saddam.

But exactly correct on Iraq, it had oohing to do with 9-11 or the terrorist that are OUR major problem.
Iraq was NOT a priority. certainly not a Billion dollar, 100thousands+ dead priority.

Yes and no. Ignoring the fact of where bin Laden came from (.. you'll need to do that, of course ..) ...
http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-ara...s-to-terrorism
I'll be fair .. Saudi Arabia has been tough on terrorists, of late. This is encouraging. Nonetheless ... Saudi Arabia is the chief source of the Wahhabi 'variant' of Islam, an extremist version of it. Terrorists take to it like a duck to water.
Funny you should ask ...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-...15-7?r=US&IR=T
This is what they told THE GUARDIAN. So, you know 'It Must Be True' ...
Shall I continue ?
You mean, apart from allowing bin Laden his own compound to stay at, for YEARS .. ?
Oh, well .. let's see ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakist...ored_terrorism
NEED I SAY MORE ?

Not at all, this is exactly my point, here we have CLEAR evidence that 3 countries that are KNOWN to be consorting with our REAL enemies and yet we have no trrops on the ground or BOYAH missile strikes to overthrow the gov't. in fact we've been sending each of the terrorist affiliated nations BILLIONS of dollars, in aid military and CASH.
But somehow ASSAD, who we don't even have hard evidence of committing this latest chem attack MUST be fired apon with 53 missiles?! it makes no logical sense. at least based on our STATED goals.

the congressional use of force CLEARLY says that the U.S. is authorized to attack any nation that harbors or assist anyone associated with the 911 groups. But somehow since bush the countries we've been pestering have had the LEAST connections.

the point is ASSAD is not a legitimate target compared to others. IF we're really looking for excuses to attack nations.
the bar is not level.
OR PERHAPS,is it possible that the war on terror and defending the innocent from "atrocities" are a smokescreen for other goals?
Or maybe the U.S. leadership from Bush to Trump is just stupid?
because based on your own quick assessment there ar e many other nations with VERY REAL terrorist connections who we still call "Friends" and "NATO partners"

Have YOU ?

Yes and there are many countries that commit various atrocities have been since WW2, Saddam did years before we attacked him. He gasses his own and we did NOTHING, in fact we gave him a CASH afterwards. again the motives for "attacking other countries is NOT level Drummond. . there are OTHER agendas at work. and the "atrocities card" or the "drug dealer card" or the evil dictator cards" are only played to the point of war when gov't officials have another agenda.

Well now, a Leftie would claim that you could 'negotiate' with aggressors. But it doesn't take much reflection to dismiss that as impractical, bordering on the comically absurd.

Could the Taliban have been negotiated with, to give up bin Laden ? GW Bush DID give them that opportunity, by the way. They ignored it .. of course ...

Have you ever heard of an Islamic terrorist who could be persuaded to renounce his terrorism, or even 'just' so much as 'consider' renouncing violence ?

It's in the nature of the problem that the aggressors we're talking about won't consider anything LESS than force. They respect nothing else. If you think otherwise ... I look forward to your evidence !!

I'm not talking about "negotiation", but at least you took a shot.

Correction: Obama's much-announced withdrawal of troops from Iraq was the very making of ISIS. American troops moved out. ISIS moved in !

The big problem with the War on Terror has been that it's been RELAXED. Consequently, terrorists from ISIS and other groups have had far less pressure on them ... they've been given the gift of a 'breather', and of course, they've used the opportunity to enhance their capabilities.

Obama must be proud !!

you have to go back further . when GWBush fired all of Sadams Army without pay HE created ISIS in IRAQ. There was no Isis in Iraq until he invaded, period. GWB must be very proud.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Kathianne;863819]@Gunny Expound, please.[/QUOTE @Kathianne ... Ive read every one of Alistair MacLean's novels. He was from Scotland. Very technical and quite verbose. He keeps you on your seat because he's got so many twists and turns it's ridiculous. I'm trying to think of something you may have seen that he wrote. "Where Eagles Dare".

He screwed me up. When we came back to the US I had to learn to spell all over again. Americans don't spell in proper English. And I learned proper English. I catch myself using proper English all the time and have to hit the backspace.

Anyways, he was a mystery thriller writer. When we lived in Greece, I lived in the base library. I wasn't quite yet into girls -- like there were a whole bunch to go round -- I'd go there and just sit and read.

English writers are verbose as Hell. They seem more concerned with technical detail than the characters. If yu can stay awake through Last of the Mohicans or Dracula or Frankenstein you got me beat. The movies are better than the books. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is written in the same style. The characters are cold and you plod through the story,

[Kathianne]

@Gunny Expound, please.

@Kathianne ... Ive read every one of Alistair MacLean's novels. He was from Scotland. Very technical and quite verbose. He keeps you on your seat because he's got so many twists and turns it's ridiculous. I'm trying to think of something you may have seen that he wrote. "Where Eagles Dare".

He screwed me up. When we came back to the US I had to learn to spell all over again. Americans don't spell in proper English. And I learned proper English. I catch myself using proper English all the time and have to hit the backspace.

Anyways, he was a mystery thriller writer. When we lived in Greece, I lived in the base library. I wasn't quite yet into girls -- like there were a whole bunch to go round -- I'd go there and just sit and read.

English writers are verbose as Hell. They seem more concerned with technical detail than the characters. If yu can stay awake through Last of the Mohicans or Dracula or Frankenstein you got me beat. The movies are better than the books. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is written in the same style. The characters are cold and you plod through the story,

Ok, verbosity, got it. Not me.

[Gunny]

Ok, verbosity, got it. Not me.

I don't know how to explain it without being verbose. It's just a different style of writing. Most of the novels I listed are 19th century. McLean's are 40s-50s. If you can live through a James Fennimore Cooper novel. let me know.

[Drummond]

"shelter"? if that's the guy i remember he lived in Iraq hiding in the hinterlands but he was not a guest of Saddam.

But exactly correct on Iraq, it had oohing to do with 9-11 or the terrorist that are OUR major problem.
Iraq was NOT a priority. certainly not a Billion dollar, 100thousands+ dead priority.

Did I say he was a 'guest' ? I said he was sheltered. And, sheltered, he WAS.

See ...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/A...0Conformed.htm

King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.

You don't think that qualifies as 'sheltering' ?

Also from the same link, by the way ...

... the Exempt Media completely missed important corroboration from Iraq's new government that Saddam sheltered and even encouraged al-Qaeda terrorists during his reign of terror.

In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

The War on Terror was meant to be precisely that ! You can argue all you like about how much of a 'priority' Saddam was in that, but that he was a legitimate target is surely beyond dispute.

This is over and above the whole issue of whether or not he had WMD's, and if he did, what he might do with them, AND, what message it would send the world to just leave him alone to stockpile, as he chose !

Not at all, this is exactly my point, here we have CLEAR evidence that 3 countries that are KNOWN to be consorting with our REAL enemies and yet we have no trrops on the ground or BOYAH missile strikes to overthrow the gov't. in fact we've been sending each of the terrorist affiliated nations BILLIONS of dollars, in aid military and CASH.

Good ol' Obama, eh, Revelarts ?

But somehow ASSAD, who we don't even have hard evidence of committing this latest chem attack MUST be fired apon with 53 missiles?! it makes no logical sense. at least based on our STATED goals.

This issue is still ongoing, to some extent. I'm wondering if it's too early, yet, for us to be sure of the full picture ?

the congressional use of force CLEARLY says that the U.S. is authorized to attack any nation that harbors or assist anyone associated with the 911 groups. But somehow since bush the countries we've been pestering have had the LEAST connections.

Since Bush, you say ? Well, who took over, after Bush ?

the point is ASSAD is not a legitimate target compared to others. IF we're really looking for excuses to attack nations.
the bar is not level.

I can accept that you, personally, don't accept where the bar now needs to be set. Then again ... what Leftie does ?

Get over it. From what I've been learning, a great many Americans APPROVE of Trump's action.

OR PERHAPS,is it possible that the war on terror and defending the innocent from "atrocities" are a smokescreen for other goals?

You're a great one for conspiracy theories. I doubt that you can usefully back up your thinking, though.

Or maybe the U.S. leadership from Bush to Trump is just stupid?
because based on your own quick assessment there ar e many other nations with VERY REAL terrorist connections who we still call "Friends" and "NATO partners"

Really ?

Well, the geopolitical scene is an ever-evolving one. Considerations - and GOOD ones - may be in play, which address, 'real time', what is for the best.

If you have Saudi Arabia in mind .. well, they, of late, HAVE been taking an anti-terrorist line. For as long as that persists, isn't it a good thing to ally with them, to give support as and when it's needed ?

Yes and there are many countries that commit various atrocities have been since WW2, Saddam did years before we attacked him. He gasses his own and we did NOTHING, in fact we gave him a CASH afterwards. again the motives for "attacking other countries is NOT level Drummond. . there are OTHER agendas at work. and the "atrocities card" or the "drug dealer card" or the evil dictator cards" are only played to the point of war when gov't officials have another agenda.

It's interesting, Revelarts. Here you are, taking a 'lamenting' tone over what you say is happening. Yet .. if the US made the extent of effort to be a world policeman that you're implying may be appropriate ... you, of all people, would happily be at the head of the queue to carp about it !!

Why not admit that you hate the War on Terror, and be done with it ?

I'm not talking about "negotiation", but at least you took a shot.

What, then ?

you have to go back further . when GWBush fired all of Sadams Army without pay HE created ISIS in IRAQ. There was no Isis in Iraq until he invaded, period. GWB must be very proud.

I love this 'logic'. Applying it, I could also say that there was no 9/11 before Bush took Office. Does that mean that it was all Bush's fault ??

Besides, you're missing the point that Iraq's security interests were being met, from the presence of American troops, who were, in any case, busily trying to train up the Iraqi personnel necessary to take over from them. The real problem, and ISIS's consequent emergence in Iraq, came about because Obama withdrew American personnel prematurely, AND obligingly gave any terrorist who cared to know about it, ample advance warning of it !!!

[revelarts]

I love this 'logic'. Applying it, I could also say that there was no 9/11 before Bush took Office. Does that mean that it was all Bush's fault ??

Besides, you're missing the point that Iraq's security interests were being met, from the presence of American troops, who were, in any case, busily trying to train up the Iraqi personnel necessary to take over from them. The real problem, and ISIS's consequent emergence in Iraq, came about because Obama withdrew American personnel prematurely, AND obligingly gave any terrorist who cared to know about it, ample advance warning of it !!!

we've gone far a field of the thread but to address your last bit
3 thing briefly,
1st GWBush set up the the timing on the 2011 withdrawal, and unless we want to say that Bush NEVER intended to honor that agreement then Obama can't have the whole blame on the withdrawal.

2nd the Isis Fighters are made up of the same Syrian and Libyan rebels that Obama and the people like McCAin and Garahm and even Romney agreed with and egged on.

3rd Many of the people in the Iraqi Insurgencies and NOW in Isis are many of the 40,000 former Bathist of Saddam that were stupidly put on the streets with out a job or pensions.

Does Obama hold part of the bag, absolutely. Is it all on him no. it started with the invasion of Iraq.
which had NOTHING to do with 911 as you've already stated.

How Saddam’s Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS | The Rise of ISIS | FRONTLINE | PBS

CNN.com - U.S. dissolves Iraqi army, Defense and Information ministries - May. 23, 2003

Paul Bremer on Iraq, ten years on: 'We made major strategic mistakes. But I still think Iraqis are far better off' - Middle East - World - The Independent

Documents Indicate Policy Plan That Fueled Iraqi Insurgency Was Compartmentalized in Rumsfeld's Pentagon | Foreign Policy Journal

"...Among the documents released is Bremer’s memo to Rumsfeld informing him of his intent to issue Order #2. In that memo, with the subject heading “Dissolution of the Ministry of Defense [MOD] and Related Entities” and dated May 19, 2003, Bremer stated, “In the coming days I propose to issue the attached order (Tab A) carrying forward the de-Ba’athification effort by dissolving Saddam’s key security ministries…. The order also makes clear we will begin the process of establishing new armed forces for the new Iraq to provide for legitimate self-defense needs.” Bremer also noted that “The order will affect large numbers of people: There were some 400,000 employees of the MOD alone”, and acknowledged “the risks of serious discontent, increased terrorism, and much higher crime rates that may result if we cut of [sic] all military and security sector pensioners in a heavily militarized society.”"

Documents Indicate Policy Plan That Fueled Iraqi Insurgency Was Compartmentalized in Rumsfeld's Pentagon | Foreign Policy Journal

They KNEW they were making it worse, and they did it anyway.
2003 the GWBUSH admin.
Did Obama play his own part, sure, but who created the mess WHERE THERE WAS NOT ONE? the honest answer has nothing to do with your unique 'left always am bad' and 'right always do double plus good' mentality.
it has to do with the ACTIONS of people involved.

[Drummond]

we've gone far a field of the thread but to address your last bit
3 thing briefly,
1st GWBush set up the the timing on the 2011 withdrawal, and unless we want to say that Bush NEVER intended to honor that agreement then Obama can't have the whole blame on the withdrawal.

Don't be ridiculous. Obama publicly declared his own intentions, even before he properly took Office. Besides, Obama would've had the capability to do what HE wanted. If he'd wanted to oppose such a timing, or follow another route entirely, he could have done that. Instead, HE chose what HE chose. Therefore, the result of that is entirely his responsibility.

2nd the Isis Fighters are made up of the same Syrian and Libyan rebels that Obama and the people like McCAin and Garahm and even Romney agreed with and egged on.

Context ? Did this so-called 'egging on' involve outright alliegance with ISIS ? An understanding of what ISIS were ? I doubt it !

3rd Many of the people in the Iraqi Insurgencies and NOW in Isis are many of the 40,000 former Bathist of Saddam that were stupidly put on the streets with out a job or pensions.

You want to blame Bush for decisions which all of those independently made ?

Typical Leftie tactic, that. Anything you think you can blame Bush for, you WILL blame him for .. whether true or not, whether sensible or not !

Does Obama hold part of the bag, absolutely. Is it all on him no.

I disagree. Obama was free to take his own path. This he did. It IS all down to him.

Or would you like to claim that Bush and Obama co-ran Obama's Presidency ??

it started with the invasion of Iraq.

which had NOTHING to do with 911 as you've already stated.

... BUT, there were dangers involved in leaving Saddam alone. Teaching the world that no power choosing to stockpile WMD's could do so without fear of reprisals was one. Letting Saddam choose to be as actively involved with terrorists as he wanted, was another.

Saddam was a legitimate target in the War on Terror. Face that fact.

We're aware that the outcome of the 2003 invasion wasn't ideal. But, that's a far cry from concluding that it would have worked out better had Saddam been left alone, free instead to do his worst. Perhaps the problems would've been different ...a proliferation of rogue regimes all threatening WMD use, for example ? Maybe Islamic terrorists would've got their hands on, and deployed, WMD's by now ?

The biggest single mistake has been to relax the War on Terror. It shouldn't have reached its peak with Iraq ... it should have continued on.

[revelarts]

must watch,
new Bill in congress,
Purpose, that the U.S. gov't not FUND, arm, train or support directly or indirectly AQ ISIL and AlNusra TERRORIST in the M.E..

As i mention to drummond earlier. the U.S. is Supporting AQ, ISIS/ISIL, Al NUSRA.
Making them STRONGER in a covert/overt effort to defeat ASSAD.

Syria didn't attack us on 911. AQ did!
Syria didn't fight us in IRAQ AQ and ISIS did!
Syrian troops didn't cut the heads off of Christians ALNusra Did.

Seems to me either our gov't is STUPID or
there's another unspoken agenda for wanting Assad gone MORE than defeating terrorist groups that have killed thousands of americans over the last 12+ years and literally threatened to destroy the U.S..
Has Syria threatened to destroy the U.S..?

whatever the Bush/Obama/Trump motives the "war on terror" is shown to be pure BS with the need for this law.
But seems to me it's Overkill. the anti terror laws on the books already should put ANY gov't office (high or Low) in prison (or Gitmo) for aiding any of those groups. But somehow It's been done year after year without consequence.

"I didn't KNOW i was giving training, and money to AQ." wouldn't go over well in court if any of us were on trial... after doing it for YEARS.
but these gov't actions never even MAKE it to court. why? Stupidity or another agenda?
you choose.
basically been going on since BinLaden though, so how much stupid can we buy before we start to wonder if it might be on purpose?
.

[Drummond]

must watch,
new Bill in congress,
Purpose, that the U.S. gov't not FUND, arm, train or support directly or indirectly AQ ISIL and AlNusra TERRORIST in the M.E..

As i mention to drummond earlier. the U.S. is Supporting AQ, ISIS/ISIL, Al NUSRA.
Making them STRONGER in a covert/overt effort to defeat ASSAD.

Syria didn't attack us on 911. AQ did!
Syria didn't fight us in IRAQ AQ and ISIS did!
Syrian troops didn't cut the heads off of Christians ALNusra Did.

Seems to me either our gov't is STUPID or
there's another unspoken agenda for wanting Assad gone MORE than defeating terrorist groups that have killed thousands of americans over the last 12+ years and literally threatened to destroy the U.S..
Has Syria threatened to destroy the U.S..?

whatever the Bush/Obama/Trump motives the "war on terror" is shown to be pure BS with the need for this law.
But seems to me it's Overkill. the anti terror laws on the books already should put ANY gov't office (high or Low) in prison (or Gitmo) for aiding any of those groups. But somehow It's been done year after year without consequence.

"I didn't KNOW i was giving training, and money to AQ." wouldn't go over well in court if any of us were on trial... after doing it for YEARS.
but these gov't actions never even MAKE it to court. why? Stupidity or another agenda?
you choose.
basically been going on since BinLaden though, so how much stupid can we buy before we start to wonder if it might be on purpose?
.

This is just offensive, Revelarts.

I for one find it difficult to accept that the US is giving terrorists ANY such support. Whether or not Obama found some back-channel way to do such a thing ... somehow I doubt it, though admittedly I wouldn't put it past him. Trump most definitely WOULD NOT.

Unless you prove your assertion beyond doubt, Revelarts (more so than having just one commentator saying it's happened, possibly said for partisan / electoral gain ?), don't expect me to take your posting seriously in future.

Let's say it was true, though. Let's say Obama arranged that support. Well ... I suggest that this would mean that Obama was purposely aiding and arming America's enemies. So, why isn't Obama facing some form of prosecution, on the grounds of betrayal to his country ??

[revelarts]

This is just offensive, Revelarts.
I for one find it difficult to accept that the US is giving terrorists ANY such support. Whether or not Obama found some back-channel way to do such a thing ... somehow I doubt it, though admittedly I wouldn't put it past him. Trump most definitely WOULD NOT.
Unless you prove your assertion beyond doubt, Revelarts (more so than having just one commentator saying it's happened, possibly said for partisan / electoral gain ?), don't expect me to take your posting seriously in future.
Let's say it was true, though. Let's say Obama arranged that support. Well ... I suggest that this would mean that Obama was purposely aiding and arming America's enemies. So, why isn't Obama facing some form of prosecution, on the grounds of betrayal to his country ??

Been going on for decades, at times i'm sure it was literally a "mistake", sometimes, as with the quote from Bremer of the Bush admin i posted earlier, they KNEW they we're promoting terrorism with their policies/actions by default, but also often it was known and calculated as "jihadist" can be useful tools against...
the soviets and Z Brezenski said when he helped recruit, fund and arm the Afghan "rebels",
the Israelis promoted the fledgling Hamas as a rival to the PLO,
Obama and his Republican Allies in congress gave LIKELY or Known ISIS fighters funds, arms, training and cover to fight Assad.
Even more clearly they did the same in Libya against Khadaffi. our CIA and military “advisors” to the "rebels" were well aware that those Libyan "freedom fighters" we air and sea supported were AQ. And many were former Isis fighters against our own men in IRAQ who came back home to topple Khadaffi.
then the 2nd hand help of AQ via other M.E. states Allies which tries to give the U.S. the appearance of somewhat clean hands. the Saudis, passing money and arms that they got from the U.S.. the Turks giving the terrorist EVERYTHING, literally everything that they can. Quatar as well, Jordan and Pakistan have played both sides sometimes fighting terrorist sometime sheltering and supporting.

more than enough of this information is publicly available if you're open enough to see it.


the problem is if you have blinders on and Only WANT to see the U.S. as fighting terror and Speadin’ Democray then you don't add it to facts that form your view.


I can, and will, post a few links but if you don't want to believe them because you have MINSET that DOESN’T ALLOW IT TO BE REAL,
"Someone would have done something" Or "Only the democrats do bad things"
“the lefty media ALWAYS lies and NEVER say ANYTHING true”
then well no amount of evidence will make a difference will it?

[revelarts]

there's more than this available that confirm what i'm saying Drummond but here are a few items to check.
I'm not trying to make the U.S. LOOK hypocritical and supporting terrorist willy nilly,
I'm just looking at the TOTALITY of the words and ACTIONS. not just "stated goals" flag waving, macho posturing

SO if your interested, in no particular order.

Senior Western official: Links between Turkey and ISIS are now 'undeniable'
http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-...15-7?r=US&IR=T


Saudi Arabia's Links to Terrorism
http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-ara...s-to-terrorism


Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakist...ored_terrorism


Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group
Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...adi-group.html


Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra
The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...islamist-group


Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right!



How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/...he-mujahideen/


From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingt...tion%20Efforts


The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10353/


US Chief Of VISA section at JEDDAH,MICHAEL SPRINGMANN testified that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications by Saudi Aabian men similar to those named as the 9/11 HijackersPatsies when he was head of the consular section of the US embassy in Jeddah, but C.I.A. officers repeatedly overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued.



Rym Momtaz and Trevor J. Ladd report on ABC News
Two former Senators who led inquiries into the 9/11 attacks have issued sworn statements that they believe the government of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the fight on terrorism, may have played a role in the terror attacks ten years ago. “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks.
Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who served on the 9/11 Commission, said in a separate affidavit that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”....
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senato...5#.T1AXz8w5ly4




Ex-Senators Say Saudi Arabia May Be Linked to 9/11
According to Sen. Graham, open questions include possible financial support of al Qaeda by Saudi charities, and the role of a Saudi resident of California who was in contact with both the hijackers and Saudi officials. "There was a direct line," wrote Graham, "between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and [a] Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senato...5#.T1K3I8yS7qS




Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-...i-911-coverup/


BIN LADENS ALLOWED OUT OF U.S. AFTER 9-11
Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor
http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20600/#Q7VVHu2rudJVFPmI.99




NEW SAUDI KING TIED TO AL QAEDA, BIN LADEN AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...-in-911-suits/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/27/...gin_redirect=0
http://www.historycommons.org/entity...n_abdul-aziz_1


How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847
Ehud Olmert on Sunday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of deliberately strengthening Hamas in order to convince the Israeli public that there is no Palestinian partner for peace.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-P...ceive-Israelis
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...102#post560102


CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran




U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wo...nted=1&_r=0&hp




U.S. Weaponry Heading to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Recent unrest has not severed agreements
http://reason.com/24-7/2012/12/07/us...lim-brotherhoo




"...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc




Bin Laden Comes homes to Roost : His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/#.WPJw8hTp-NM




the people we’re fighting today we funded

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc




Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...eda-links.html


‘Freelance jihadists’ join Libyan rebels
Ex-al Qaeda member speaks out
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...libyan-rebels/


US Congressman Dennis Kucinich on Al-Qaeda flag over Benghazi Courthouse 02-11-2011





Is the U.S. Still Funding Iranian Suicide Bombers?
President Obama is denouncing a suicide attack by the Sunni terrorists Jundallah that killed 39 in Iran, but is his administration still backing the group? Reza Aslan on how the bombing might bring the two countries together.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...jundallah.html




THE REDIRECTION
Is the Bush Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...he-redirection


Al-Qaeda Backers Found With U.S. Contracts in Afghanistan
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ghanistan.html


Frontline PBS
there is evidence to suggest under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. was deeply involved in funding Jundallah terrorists.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1c6SHX5Is




Top Jundallah Figure Says US Ordered Attacks
Baloch Separatist Group Stopped Getting al-Qaeda Aid in 2003, Then Started Getting US Aid by Jason Ditz, August 25, 2009
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/t...dered-attacks/


The Fuzzy Line of Terrorism by FBI 911 hero Coleen Rowley
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/27...-of-terrorism/


Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ep/23/iran-usa


http://rt.com/news/iran-mek-us-military-237/


Moreover, organizations are labeled as terrorists, then de-listed, and then re-listed … depending on ever-changing American policy objectives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/when-is...r-a-terrorist/


TERROR LIST GAMES
The NYU scholar Remi Brulin has exhaustively detailed the rank game-playing that has taken place with this list: Saddam was put on it when he allied with the Soviets in the early 1980s, then was taken off when the US wanted to arm and fund him against Iran in the mid-1980s, then he was put back on in the early 1990s when the US wanted to attack him.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/14/terrorism_20/




http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...not-our-enemy/




“The Chechens’ American friends: The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia




How a Chechen terror suspect wound up living on taxpayers' dollars near the National Zoo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar15.html




…………………………….
Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
George W. Bush




You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
George W. Bush