Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[GaryC 7]

Well, at least we don't have to wonder anymore why you say what you say. All 16 US Intelligence services agree that the war in Iraq has nothing but increased the terrorist threat against the US and has left this nation worse off from a security point of view, But your idiotic, extremist right wing blogger knows better. Sure. We should just abolish the intelligence services altogether and put Rush Limbaugh and this fool of a blogger in charge of the safety and security of this nation. These idiots are so fcuking full of themselves. And some fools actually value this sort of brain-dead ####### more than the expertise of those that actually know what they're talking about.

I don't see you disputing anything that was posted there, only more of the same moronic insults. The dems wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the a$$. Please dispute the things I posted there-without lying about it.

You really do have trouble reading, don't you? The bolded part directly refutes the bloggers #5. And it ain't me lying about it, it's the unanimous assessment of all 16 US intelligence services.

No, I don't think you read anything at all. Here is the declassified Key Judgments of the Intellegence commitee. Read it and then spout your BS.

Declassified Key Judgments of the National

Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism:

Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

Key Judgments

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of

al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to

pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist

organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-

Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is

spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

This says we are winning but have not yet won. It means that we should continue to fight them because they are still a threat.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body

of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,

although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and

geographic dispersion.

• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become

more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.

• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority

nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such

progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the

vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida,

could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global

strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-

American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose

and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in

importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the

Homeland.

• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests.

Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate

recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and

2005 London bombings.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and

operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the

struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep

resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for

the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,

and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry

on the fight.

This is the part you keep refering to. Notice what it says after that. That means that if we beat these SOB's then the threat goes down!!!! The jihadists are using the Iraq war to spread their poison. If it wasn't for that they would just choose another cause to rally their kind. This is hardly the damning report you keep referring to. Stop listening to the liberal media and think for yourself!!!

We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its

vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.

• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)

Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western

domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the

Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and

political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US

sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed

and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include

dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the

jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and

criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution—an

ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the

Muslim world—is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the

religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda

would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.

Here is one thing I tend to agree with the dems on. We do need a change of direction. We need to exploit this vulnerabilitiy in ADDITION to fighting them in Iraq.

• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few

notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a

constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also

could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim

communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on

passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the

most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated

multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist

leaders.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,

political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and

groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless,

attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities

for jihadists to exploit.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the

situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

We got this SOB. Now we need to get the rest of them

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and

al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into

smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the

mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.

We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less

serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against

Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global

threat.

You can scratch this one off the list.

• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might

lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-

Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their

reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their

traditional areas of operation.

• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-

Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests

abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime

targets and regional or global ones.

We judge that most jihadist groups—both well-known and newly formed—will use

improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to

implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct

sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a

potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of

terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being

exploited by terrorists.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical

ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt

terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more

quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of

surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to

pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to

communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial

support.

From what I read here it is telling me that we can beat these guys if we don't give up. Very little of this assesment points at Iraq as the cause of the spread of the terrorists. These guys just don't like us. They didn't before the war and they would still not like us even if we didn't go into Iraq. But you and your kind think that the Iraq war is the only reason for terrorism. How soon you forget about 9/11. BinLaden declaired war on us long before Bush was ever in office. The fact that he is using the war in Iraq as a rallying cry does not mean that it's the root cause. You accuse Bush of cherry picking. I would say that is what you are doing by citing this report as the final word on the failure of the war.

[mybackpages 0]

The main similarity is that Iraq, like Vietnam, was a fundamentally bad idea.

While you may be correct in that statement, and I might even agree with it, its validity lies in the wisdom of hind-sight. At the start of Vietnam, the whole domino-theory and spread of communism seemed like a logical reason to go into that country. Just like to stop the spread of terrorism and rid a fanatic of WMD seemed like a good idea at the time at the start of Iraq.

On Iraq - it wasn't hind-sight for me. I was never convinced.

That's what I don't get about this whole debate on the war. I was never convinced. I had no access to classified documents I simply read newspapers (a variety of them) . I would bet many of the people here represent what is true of most Americans- they don't read newspapers. News is gathered from the internet, soundbites on TV and bloggers

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The main similarity is that Iraq, like Vietnam, was a fundamentally bad idea.

While you may be correct in that statement, and I might even agree with it, its validity lies in the wisdom of hind-sight. At the start of Vietnam, the whole domino-theory and spread of communism seemed like a logical reason to go into that country. Just like to stop the spread of terrorism and rid a fanatic of WMD seemed like a good idea at the time at the start of Iraq.

On Iraq - it wasn't hind-sight for me. I was never convinced.

That's what I don't get about this whole debate on the war. I was never convinced. I had no access to classified documents I simply read newspapers (a variety of them) . I would bet many of the people here represent what is true of most Americans- they don't read newspapers. News is gathered from the internet, soundbites on TV and bloggers

True. You use as many contrasting sources as possible and form your own interpretation. Of course, when the news later comes out with leaked memos which say your interpretation was basically correct (a la The Downing Street Memo), what do you do?

I guess the idea that "government knows best" therefore "we should accept everything they do" as being "good for me" is a little peculiar to me. You hear people complain that they don't want the government running public services because it will be a never-ending pit of taxation, bureaucracy and corruption - yet accept without question the government's view as it pertains to foreign policy.

[mybackpages 0]

The main similarity is that Iraq, like Vietnam, was a fundamentally bad idea.

While you may be correct in that statement, and I might even agree with it, its validity lies in the wisdom of hind-sight. At the start of Vietnam, the whole domino-theory and spread of communism seemed like a logical reason to go into that country. Just like to stop the spread of terrorism and rid a fanatic of WMD seemed like a good idea at the time at the start of Iraq.

On Iraq - it wasn't hind-sight for me. I was never convinced.

That's what I don't get about this whole debate on the war. I was never convinced. I had no access to classified documents I simply read newspapers (a variety of them) . I would bet many of the people here represent what is true of most Americans- they don't read newspapers. News is gathered from the internet, soundbites on TV and bloggers

True. You use as many contrasting sources as possible and form your own interpretation. Of course, when the news later comes out with leaked memos which say your interpretation was basically correct (a la The Downing Street Memo), what do you do?

I guess the idea that "government knows best" therefore "we should accept everything they do" as being "good for me" is a little peculiar to me. You hear people complain that they don't want the government running public services because it will be a never-ending pit of taxation, bureaucracy and corruption - yet accept without question the government's view as it pertains to foreign policy.

Exactly. Though I was never convinced, I had enough knowledge of my own limitations and that it could turn out i wrong on my interpretation. I wasn't pleased about the Downing Street Memo because it proved me right. I was outraged that it received very little attention by the mainstream media. The same media that is always accused of being "liberal" I was outraged that no one seemed to think it matters.

I hear Americans say all the tiime- this is something you just have to trust the government on. Well...not really if you understand American democracy. Where we were failed in this war was not only the Bush administration's dubious push towards war but the failure of the opposition party and the media to question this push.

I am still optimistic that now that the electin has shown a change in public attitudes towards the Republicans and Iraq, that the Democrats and the media will be a bit bolder in demanding answers to the questions raised by anti-war voices. However I am still cynical enough to know one is more worried about winning in 2008 and the other is more worried about profits.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and

al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into

smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the

mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.

We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less

serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against

Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global

threat.

You can scratch this one off the list.

Yes, we did get that sob. And things have gotten so much better since.

[GaryC 7]

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and

al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into

smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the

mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.

We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less

serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against

Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global

threat.

You can scratch this one off the list.

Yes, we did get that sob. And things have gotten so much better since.

That all you got to say? That kind of kills your refuting of #5 on the list. So do you want to try again? There are also 14 other points I am not hearing much from you about.

[Alex+R 0]

The main similarity is that Iraq, like Vietnam, was a fundamentally bad idea.

While you may be correct in that statement, and I might even agree with it, its validity lies in the wisdom of hind-sight. At the start of Vietnam, the whole domino-theory and spread of communism seemed like a logical reason to go into that country. Just like to stop the spread of terrorism and rid a fanatic of WMD seemed like a good idea at the time at the start of Iraq.

On Iraq - it wasn't hind-sight for me. I was never convinced.

That's what I don't get about this whole debate on the war. I was never convinced. I had no access to classified documents I simply read newspapers (a variety of them) . I would bet many of the people here represent what is true of most Americans- they don't read newspapers. News is gathered from the internet, soundbites on TV and bloggers

Add me to the list of the never convinced. Not that joining an anti-war campus group and marching around was particularly productive, but at least I made my views known.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That all you got to say? That kind of kills your refuting of #5 on the list. So do you want to try again? There are also 14 other points I am not hearing much from you about.

Yeah, that's all I have to say in response to this nonsensical argument in regards to the Intelligence Estimate. I won't waste my time rebutting a partial document that lets me see only those passages that the President wants me to see rather than the document as a whole that would, in it's entirety, be reflective of the executive summary that has been provided to the people already.

The other 14 points? Are you kidding me? You think I would take this nonsense of a blogger with no credentials whatsoever seriously enough to even deal with it? You might give that ####### actual importance. I won't 'cause it doesn't have any. Not in the real world it doesn't.

The main similarity is that Iraq, like Vietnam, was a fundamentally bad idea.

While you may be correct in that statement, and I might even agree with it, its validity lies in the wisdom of hind-sight. At the start of Vietnam, the whole domino-theory and spread of communism seemed like a logical reason to go into that country. Just like to stop the spread of terrorism and rid a fanatic of WMD seemed like a good idea at the time at the start of Iraq.

On Iraq - it wasn't hind-sight for me. I was never convinced.

That's what I don't get about this whole debate on the war. I was never convinced. I had no access to classified documents I simply read newspapers (a variety of them) . I would bet many of the people here represent what is true of most Americans- they don't read newspapers. News is gathered from the internet, soundbites on TV and bloggers

Add me to the list of the never convinced. Not that joining an anti-war campus group and marching around was particularly productive, but at least I made my views known.

Hindsight wasn't a factor for me either. I knew from day one that this illegal adventure was a very bad idea. Never did support any illegal attack on another country nor would I ever.

[GaryC 7]

That all you got to say? That kind of kills your refuting of #5 on the list. So do you want to try again? There are also 14 other points I am not hearing much from you about.

Yeah, that's all I have to say in response to this nonsensical argument in regards to the Intelligence Estimate. I won't waste my time rebutting a partial document that lets me see only those passages that the President wants me to see rather than the document as a whole that would, in it's entirety, be reflective of the executive summary that has been provided to the people already.

The other 14 points? Are you kidding me? You think I would take this nonsense of a blogger with no credentials whatsoever seriously enough to even deal with it? You might give that ####### actual importance. I won't 'cause it doesn't have any. Not in the real world it doesn't.

That "partial document" is what you and the liberal media have been using to bash Bush with. Doesn't feel to good when you are shown that it wasn't what you thought. You just sucked up the slop that the media fed you without really looking at it. Unless I missed it that is all that has been released. If the rest has and it says something different than the summary please post it. Unlike you I base my opinions on the facts and not the BS that is fed me by the media. And before you start spouting about Rush again I gather my own info. I don't blindly follow anyone. You on the other hand seem to just believe what you want and to hell with the facts.

Am I kidding you about the other 14 points? No, I really want to see you refute them. I know that you can't because I have also researched them and know them to be true. My guess is that you have been had and now you realize it. Instead of talking about it you would rather fall back to the stereotypical insults made so famous by the left when confronted with the facts. Come on, give it your best shot. I dare you.

[BJZags 17]

Hindsight wasn't a factor for me either. I knew from day one that this illegal adventure was a very bad idea. Never did support any illegal attack on another country nor would I ever.

Of course there are those that would argue that our "illegal attack" on another country have prevented ANOTHER illegal attack on OUR country. Since I've spent too much time in countries where large segments of society have raised their children to hate the western way of life and condon the distruction of this way of life, you will have a difficult time convincing me that this argument does not have merit.

[Alex+R 0]

You just sucked up the slop that the media fed you without really looking at it.

Pot. Kettle. as someone said...

Unlike you I base my opinions on the facts and not the BS that is fed me by the media.

Said the man apparently convinced a conservative blog is filled with facts and only facts.

[mawilson 2,133]

You people are all crackers bonkers.

The war costs too much -- we can't afford it -- sooner or later we will have to leave.

[GaryC 7]

You just sucked up the slop that the media fed you without really looking at it.

Pot. Kettle. as someone said...

Unlike you I base my opinions on the facts and not the BS that is fed me by the media.

Said the man apparently convinced a conservative blog is filled with facts and only facts.

I still don't see anyone proving what he said is wrong. When you don't like the message then attack the messenger. Come on! Give it your best shot!

Here is something else for you to chew on. It doesn't blame Iraq for the rise in terror also.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/69479.pdf

Edited November 18, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[GaryC 7]

National Intelligence Estimate Trends in Global Terrorism

By James Joyner

As promised, the White House has declassified portions of the controversial National Intelligence Estimate that reportedly says the Iraq War has worsened the terrorist threat. The declassified portions, in their entirety:

Then he posts the same thing I did above.

These findings are much less controversial taken in their entirety than the “Iraq War equals more terrorists” meme seized on by the NYT and WaPo when they reported on this. Indeed, my reaction to the “key findings” is basically, “Well, yeah. We’re actually paying people to come up with this?!”

UPDATE: While I frequently disagree with Hugh Hewitt, he nails it on this one: “The Times’ reporters and editors that ran Sunday’s stories were either chumps who got played by anti-Bush leakers, or purposefully deceptive agenda journalists from the anti-Bush fanatics division.”

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...m_declassified/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Unlike you I base my opinions on the facts and not the BS that is fed me by the media.

Which is why you're a proud follower of Rush Limbaugh as you declared earlier. Listen to you, man.