Ackerman & Kilcullen hullabaloo
Here's some one-stop shopping for those of you who may be following the fall-out from Spencer Ackerman's story yesterday about the new inter-agency COIN manual,* wherein Spence includes a profanity-laden quote from one David Kilcullen regarding the stupidity of the Iraq war.
This prompted Herr Doktor Kilcullen to post a clarification on SWJ:
Spencer Ackerman, in yesterday’s Washington Independent, claims I told him the Iraq war was “f*cking stupid”. He did not seek to clear that quote with me, and I would not have approved it if he had. If he HAD sought a formal comment, I would have told him what I have said publicly before: in my view, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was an extremely serious strategic error. But the task of the moment is not to cry over spilt milk, rather to help clean it up: a task in which the surge, the comprehensive counterinsurgency approach, and our troops on the ground are admirably succeeding.Spencer, to his great credit, fully takes it on the chin and offers up a genuine mea culpa.
In the course of a piece I'm proud of about David Kilcullen's forthcoming strategy-level counterinsurgency handbook, I included a profanity-laden quote from him about the wisdom of the Iraq war. This was a mistake on my part and I take full responsibility for the fact that it overshadowed what I consider Kilcullen's valuable, serious, and hard-learned counterinsurgency insights.It is now, as Kilcullen wrote Charlie, "case closed, hatchet buried."
In the course of our conversation about his handbook, Dave made these and other points about the war, which are included lower down in the piece. I included the profanity because I thought it underscored the depth of his commitment to try to dig American strategy out of the morass of Iraq, which I and many others view as uncomplicatedly admirable. What I should have realized is that the profanity overwhelms the broader points presented in the handbook and about Dave's personality and professional vision. For that, I apologize, not only to Dave, but to my readers, who I hope will pay attention to those broader points despite my error in judgment.
*Unfortunately, this little brouhaha has overshadowed 1) a v. well reported piece by Spencer and 2) the uniqueness of the new manual that Kilcullen is working on. Charlie got to participate in a working group on the draft manual, which is for policy makers, not embassy officials. It's a novel effort to get the decision-making in Washington right--not just tactics in the field. Charlie, however, will admit to being a bit biased: the manual draws on a central insight of her dissertatoin that third-party counter-insurgency campaings are fundamentally different from those conducted at home and are nearly always frought with strategic peril.
101 comments:
"uniqueness of the new manual that Kilcullen is working on. "
Looked like what Metz wrote two years ago...
the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was an extremely serious strategic error
Or to put it another way....
Is the real issue that Kilcullen swore, or that Kilcullen criticized the invasion itself? Should Ackerman really have apologized? Are Ackerman, Kilcullen - and the AM crue - too cozy?
PS - Has anyone else read Prochnau, "Once Upon a Distant War?" Surely everyone else has read "A Bright Shining Lie?"
It made huffington post, so good on Ackerman. That means circulation of COIN info will go up exponentialy, as the smart liberals read through the rest of the series.
And what alex said ;-)
SNLII--you have a link to the Metz piece? Or title? Hate it when I miss one...
"Charlie, however, will admit to being a bit biased: the manual draws on a central insight of her dissertatoin that third-party counter-insurgency campaings are fundamentally different from those conducted at home and are nearly always frought with strategic peril"
A historically supported insight.
Even a given era's "superpowers" from the Spain of Charles V to Napoleonic France the Soviets to the USG have found counterinsurgency on behalf of a client to be a very hard task. Not impossible to do well but often quite costly to do poorly.
Spencer knew what he was doing. Look how much more press the article got because of that one short paragraph.
He would make Scott Thomas Beachamp and Stephen Glauss proud.
He would make Scott Thomas Beachamp and Stephen Glauss proud.
Oh, wow. That's not at all appropriate or accurate. What did he fabricate? Kilcullen didn't claim he never said what Ackerman quoted, but that he wouldn't have granted approval for it to be on the record.
Sorry, I'm sick of this little twerp Ackerman and it's an unusual lapse in judgment on the part of the AM crew to befriend and defend him.
He is irresponsible, egocentric, dangerous and going to do something very bad one day...
Charlie, in re Perino I assumed you were hanging around us take in all this COIN stuff by "osmosis."
Ha ha ha. Yes, joking.
Metz was one of the first COINdanistas I read who was asking the larger strategic question. The first inkling I recall came in 2004 with "Insurgency and Counterinsurgency," and it's been reposted on SWJ (click name).
Nutgraf, as reporters say:
"(T)he issue of when and how to engage in counterinsurgency
support will remain an open one in U.S. strategy. Specifically, the
question of whether this should be an “all or nothing” proposition is
vital. Should there be a counterinsurgency corollary to the “Powell Doctrine” which states that the United States will only engage in counterinsurgency support when the interests at stake are high enough that we are willing to sustain the effort to the end and to use decisive force, even if that requires a decade or more and a significant commitment of money and personnel? Or is a modest amount of counterinsurgency support to a beleaguered friend better than none at all? In reality, this is probably not an either/or choice. The United
States has and will continue to become involved in both “major”
counterinsurgencies where the stakes are high and sustained, high
level engagement is justifi ed as well as “minor” ones where it is not.
"The key is to understand the distinction and not let what should be a minor case segue into a major commitment. The United States must make clear whether its approach to counterinsurgency is a strategy of victory or a strategy of containment, tailoring the response and method to the threat."
I sensed this evolution of thought in Metz's earlier "Armed Conflict" (2000) and "Future War/Future Battlespace," which you can find at http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/0303metz.pdf
He had fully considered the notion by 2007 ("Learning from Iraq") and, most especially, "Rethinking Insurgeny" (go to http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB790.pdf)
Nutgraf, again:
"This suggests a very different way of thinking
about (and undertaking) counterinsurgency. At the
strategic level, the risk to the United States is not that
insurgents will “win” in the traditional sense, take
vi
over their country, and shift it from a partner to an
enemy. It is that complex internal conflicts, especially
ones involving insurgency, will generate other adverse
effects: the destabilization of regions, resource flows,
and markets; the blossoming of transnational crime;
humanitarian disasters; transnational terrorism; and so
forth. Given this, the U.S. goal should not automatically
be the defeat of the insurgents by the regime (which
may be impossible and which the regime may not even
want), but the most rapid conflict resolution possible.
In other words, a quick and sustainable resolution
which integrates insurgents into the national power
structure is less damaging to U.S. national interests
than a protracted conflict which leads to the complete
destruction of the insurgents. Protracted conflict, not
insurgent victory, is the threat."
Or, to quote a line from the underappreciated COIN masterpiece of 1983 -- Matthew Broderick's "WarGames" --"Exactly. There's no way to win. The game itself is pointless! But back at the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war. That there can be "acceptable losses."
Stephen Falken has spoken.
@Anonymous, sorry you're sick of my twerpish self. I happen to be sick of people too cowardly to sign their names when criticizing me, particularly when ignorantly suggesting that I'm a fabricator.
For more "Attackerman" hilarity check out his posting at WashIndep on THE DARK KNIGHT.
not that my opinion matters once SNLII has put his recommendation on it, but I second the mention of Metz's "Rethinking Insurgency", that piece really helped me "get it"
"If he HAD sought a formal comment, I would have told him what I have said publicly before: in my view, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was an extremely serious strategic error."
A lot easier to respect the first Kilcullen, profanity and all, than this second Kilcullen, trying to worm out of what he actually said.
"What I should have realized is that the profanity overwhelms the broader points presented in the handbook and about Dave's personality and professional vision. For that, I apologize, not only to Dave, but to my readers, who I hope will pay attention to those broader points despite my error in judgment."
No, it does not overwhelm the broader points. Not one bit. However, what this abject apology does is make one wonder about "journalists" who allow those interviewed to modify what actually was said. And who apologize for having the temerity to honestly report what was said.
One's afraid this public contretemps does little to shake the notion that this is not the finest hour for either of these gentlemen.
Some things are better left unreported.
Is it possible that "error" or "mistake" and "stupidity" are not mutually inclusive terms? Is it possible that a critic can assert that a decision or a policy is in error, without that assertion automatically casting the decision or policy in the stupid class? I know that the commentariat here, at SWJ and WashInd, what the hell, all over the joint, will be honest enough to admit to at least some minor mistakes. Are they willing then to also wear the "stupid" hairshirt?
Well, perhaps the problem is not so much what Kilcullen said but how his statement is being picked up and exploited by some in this election year (not counting Ackermann among them). It certainly was a comment tailor made for exploitation, which it was on MSNBC's Olbermann show when I first saw it dramatically reported.
It appeared to legitimize the position that the success of the surge is politically nullified by the fact that the whole thing was a mistake, now conveniently confirmed even by an insider who helped make the surge work.
Unfortunately Kilcullen got caught in the middle, exercising his free and rightful candor, but I felt badly for the young people who enthusiastically spoke of and faithfully tried to apply, his work in Iraq, and who believed it to be a worthy, critical mission.
But back at the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war. That there can be "acceptable losses."
And hence game theory was born?
Anyway...
What about Bush throwing you guys under the bus?
Despite the president's claim that he is creating a solid basis for future cooperation, his initiative will leave the fate of the American military at the mercy of Iraqi politics.
How is it a strategic error to go right into the heart of the Middle East and kick Al Qareda's ass such that the popularity of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Middle East has declined? Why is it a strategic error to defeat your enemy on its home turf?
Amen to Buck Smith. It was UBL himself that named Iraq the 'central front in the global jihad". Al Qaeda has not just been beaten tactically but most Iraqis think UBL, not Bush is to blame for the problems in post-Saddam Iraq. That's a huge IO win for the US and CF partners.
Boys, I'm pretty sure Dave Kilkullen isn't averse to kicking a little al-Qaeda ass. But al-Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we invaded. And it's not as if al-Qaeda is a set number of people we need to kill before we can go home and go back to drinking PBR while watching the Sox game. al-Qaeda's numbers swell and ebb depending on recruits. Iraq, for al-Qaeda, was a gift in terms of recruitment. Dave Kilcullen is right. Invading Iraq was stupid.
That is an incomplete analysis Abu M.
when Zarqawi's Ansar Al-Sunna took on the Al Queda brand name in Iraq and proceeded to kill thousands of Iraqi's it diminished the AQ brand. Across the middle east it left a sour taste in peoples mouths. Bin Laden's organization attacked the west and was much more discriminate than Zarqawi's version.
So in the end the AQ brand is hurting badly and we have Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds (who made up part of the original Ansar al-Sunna) running AQ out of Iraq.
In 2006 your assessment about Iraq being a "gift" for recruitment may of been true. It certainly isn't now. Their internet propaganda has disappeared since summer 07. The only jihadi vids are JAM launching rockets.
The only people I hear calling for AQ are FUTURE MOVEMENT (Lebanon) supporters online wanting salafists to attack Hezb. in revenge for May 8.
hatchet buried - but where?
If you want to swear on record to a journalist, he can use it and you've no grounds for complaint. And it's all on the record unless you say up front that it isn't.
Ackerman now thinks its an error of judgement - and so it is, in that he's burned his contact with DK. But he was right to put it in the piece, and not because it's a naughty word - it's a direct, blunt on the record criticism of the people he's worked for who made that decision, and who he's now helping out of the pickle. That's news in my book.
Intriguingly, DK says this in his response at SWJ:
'When I went to Iraq in 2007 (and on both previous occasions) it was to end the war, by suppressing the violence and defeating the insurgency.'
Isn't he missing the word 'help' in between 'to' and 'end'? Or is he really that good?
Abu Muqawama, Great to hear that somebody else is out there drinking PBR!
Abu Muqawama said...
Just to say thank you for your words which really reflects the facts that some or more Americans keep telling Iraq /al-Qaeda case together to make justification for their sick argument for Iraq invasion and occupation?
Babylonian
Richard Perle has been looking into drilling in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, near the city of Erbil.
Hahooooooo
Anon: "when Zarqawi's Ansar Al-Sunna took on the Al Queda brand name in Iraq and proceeded to kill thousands of Iraqi's it diminished the AQ brand. Across the middle east it left a sour taste in peoples mouths."
True enough, but you leave out a little detail: Invading Iraq (where there were NO active AQ groups) took focus away from Afghanistan (where there were lots of active AQ cells) and gave the real enemy time to recoup from the shock of the invasion. Its true that AQ messed up in Iraq in their attempts to hold geography against the US, but as a flanking maneuvre it functioned bloody well. Now they have strategic depth, due to surviving the first US punch in Afghanistan. So invading Iraq was a HUGE mistake if this truly is the War on Terror/Al Quaeda and not just a geopolitical exercise/Manifest Destiny kind of trip. As was refusing to talk with the Iranians in 2003. And so on, and so forth.
P.S. You dont have to register to sign your name onto a piece of text here, you know, you just find a nick and stick with it.
But al-Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we invaded.
Isn't easier to beat them in desert/savanna terrain with secure supply lines as opposed to a landlocked, moountainous terrain where the enemy has a sanctuary in a nuclear-armed, meighboring state which is half-enemy / half pseudo-ally? And where our supply lines to the landlocked terrain run through the same nuclear-armed half-enemy / half pseudo-ally?
And it's not as if al-Qaeda is a set number of people we need to kill before we can go home and go back to drinking PBR while watching the Sox game. al-Qaeda's numbers swell and ebb depending on recruits.
Recruits swelled because of 9-11 not because of our invasion of Iraq. Recruits are ebbing now because we won in Iraq.
We chose to fight them in the Middle of the Middle East. That's a better place to have this fight than on commercial airlines in the West. In particular for the people of the Middle East, who will pay a very heavy price if tactics in this war were ever to go from COIN to existential.
Buck Smith: "Isn't easier to beat them in desert/savanna terrain with secure supply lines as opposed to a landlocked, moountainous terrain where the enemy has a sanctuary in a nuclear-armed, meighboring state which is half-enemy / half pseudo-ally?"
Can you spot your own logical fallacy, mate? It would have been much easier to invade Canada in response to Pearl Harbour too. Just poured across the border in a race for Ottawa to teach them uppity japs a lesson. Oh wait.
You have to decide at some point wether this war is against AQ or against all "bad muslims". If it was and is a war against AQ, then Iraq was a massive mistake. Your contention that 9/11 was the rallying factor wich lead to the influx of foreign fighters in Iraq is... curious. Care to explain the logic?
So in order to fight Al Qaeda we need to go invade a country where they weren't there to draw them in? Hey Iraqis, we wrecked most of your country for a couple years there, but don't worry, it wasn't really you or your government that was the problem. Sorry about the mess.
On topic: I will be interested in reading the cost/benefit analysis, hope its being broken down in actual cost-units and requirements and doesnt gloss over it. ALso, hope it goes into logistics, both friendly and hostile.
"And it's not as if al-Qaeda is a set number of people we need to kill before we can go home and go back to drinking PBR while watching the Sox game."
Oh, come on, Abu M. You and I both know that Red Sox fans sip lattes or, the hard stuff, pink squirrels. I'd be surprised to find a solitary PBR drinker in that urinal of a stadium.
Men drink PBR. I could well imagine a great many in the Bronx, that cathedral to the great American game of baseball, knocking back a few PBRs.
In Eastern Tennessee, much like my part of the world, menfolk (and their womanly kin) drink PBR (you're probably too young to remember Sterling). But Boston?
Come on, Abu M. You're projecting.
"So in order to fight Al Qaeda we need to go invade a country where they weren't there to draw them in?"
No. That is an unintended spillover benefit that was noticed after the fact of invading Iraq. If it had been our intent, we might have invaded Northwest Pakistan where AQ already were instead.
Nevertheless, a benefit.
Im noticing that Ansar-al-Islam is getting a bigger and bigger credit in the pro-McCain camp. The work of Randy Scheunemann?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07
/mccain_advisors_horrifying_ira.php
Well-put, AM.
"Isn't easier to beat them in desert/savanna terrain with secure supply lines as opposed to a landlocked,"
BRILLIANT! And if the locals object to us destroying thier country while we do this, we can label them "terrorists" & kill THEM, too!
maybe you can get a job "advising" McC..........
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
@ackerman
Why would I want to tell someone like you my name? So you can denigrate my warfighting credentials or my agency? To allow you to write fictional letters on behalf of my son? Or is it so that you can claim that you would like to skullf@*k me?
I wasn't calling you a fabricator, I was calling you dangerous. I still think that whether you do it intentionally, by accident or as a 'joke' that you will end up messing up someones life, career or something significant the government is trying to achieve. And I'm sure when that happens you will think there are mitigating circumstances.
Men drink PBR.
If PBR stands for Pabst Blue Ribbon, are there really any men over the age of 18 still drinking that swill? Why not spike your water with some grain alcohol? It's the same flavor and effect.
Re: AQ in Iraq. It was my understanding that Zarqawi's group was sheltering in the north pre-invasion, precisely because our no-fly zone prevented Hussein's forces from reaching them. Am I in error? I have no idea any longer where I read that, so I could be.
Charlie:
When is your dissertation going to be UMI-able?
Princeton and Cornell Presses banging on your door, no doubt!
Or at least an IS preview?
Fnord, the Canada analogy was spot-on and humorous. Your next line also is important.
"You have to decide at some point wether this war is against AQ or against all "bad muslims"."
Some American policy makers believe that American soldiers should invade/bomb ME countries that are enemies of Israel. Since Morocco and Algeria do not threaten Israel, these are not "bad muslims". However, Iran and Syria are "bad mulsims", and must be attacked by America.
American soldiers and tax dollars should not be spent freely by idealogues enamored with a foreign nation.
James
Zarqawi came to Iraq because he knew the US was going to invade so he wanted to set up cells to fight them so he could make a name for himself as an international jihadist. He was in Baghdad as well as Kurdistan with Ansar al Sunna. He was in afghanistan before and also in Jordan and Iran.
When Saddam actually found out he was in the country he actually put out an arrest warrant for him but they couldn't find him.
That's just stupid. First of all, many Muslims have a hard time believing that the Alawite minority currently running Syria are all that Muslim. There's some theological dispute.
The problem American policymakers have with Syria is Syria's domestic and foreign policies. It's not just that Syria continues an unabated (and frankly unsuccessful) war against a democratic ally of the US in the ME, but that it's an unpopular dictatorship that brutalizes its own people and has used terror as state policy in attempts to destabilize us and other allies.
See also, Iran.
To purport that US foreign policy is anti-Islamic, one would need to ask hard questions about US peacekeeping and other military missions to Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and other hot spots featuring predominately Muslim peoples.
I get the feeling these questions won't be asked because they would usurp apriori perspectives about US foreign policy that are inconvenient.
"When Saddam actually found out he was in the country he actually put out an arrest warrant for him but they couldn't find him."
Uhhhh, he entered Iraq using his real name (Ahmed al-Khalayleh; he came from Zarqa) and Jordanian passport, and passed through the Baathist customs system, even receiving medical care in Baghdad.
Are you seriously telling us that the police state didn't know the identity of this "Afghan Arab" with the Jordanian accent and Herat terrorist pedigree entering from Iran? They had no clue that he'd been with Jund al-Shams? Come on.
Iraq's secret services weren't so naive. They knew the Foley murder was conducted by Zarqawi while in Iraq. They knew.
So, why did Hussein tolerate the arrival of so many hardcore Afghan Arabs in the no-man's zone between Kurdistan and Iraq? Because they killed Kurds loyal to the two main political parties.
Since this policy of finding pan-Sunni Kurds to kill nationalistic Kurds was shared by Iran, Syria and (quietly) Turkey, Ansar al-Islam (later Ansar al-Sunna/AQIZ) volunteers could come and go as they liked through these nations.
KRG has kept detailed files on all of this. It's something of a public record in Ibril, but often not discussed widely in the west.
Click my name for the Interpol Red Warning warrant of 2003.
The internet listing doesn't say it, but his Passport Control Number was Z 264958, a Jordanian identity card issued on 4APR99 in his hometown of al-Zarqa after the Royal amnesty that freed him from prison.
He presented that passport, along with Jordanian ID card 1433038 when he entered Iraq.
The photos from the passport and ID cards are replicated on the Interpol site.
The Baathist police state would have to possess the most bumbling customs, border patrol and intelligence officers in the world to allow al-Zarqawi, a known (and convicted) terrorist, into their keep to meet with Ansar al-Islam officers in Baghdad, then provide him medical treatment and later grant him and his lieutenants exit visas.
Only the US has such dysfunctional agencies.
Ooops. OK, now click.
To be fair to Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti and his merry band of secret policemen, Ansar al-Islam was NOT part of al-Qaeda and neither was Zarqawi when he arrived in Iraq.
He wasn't wooed to take on the brandname franchise of AQI until after the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, so I'm not suggesting that Baghdad had formal ties to AQI.
snli: If you scroll back, my comment was that you have to decide wether to fight AQ as a singular network or "bad muslims" everywhere, as Iran/Syria. Wich is way to simple and uncomplicated, I know, but I think has a grain of truth. Its the islamofascist ghost, and that term was actually used by your POTUS at least once in public. That there is a tendency to islamofobia in the west and that this is being exploited by the hard right is not a lie, just look at the way the Mahdi, sorry, Obama is treated...
As for ANsar al Islam, we are in agreement. It is highly likely that Hussein facilitated them logistically. But basically they were a hilltribe consisting of a handful of villages up north, and were not exactly AQ Special Forces. They (the main core & their families) got wiped out in approx 30 minutes during the invasion, if I am correct. Fun Fact: Their former leader is currently sleeping approx 800 meters away as the crow flies from where I sit.
Captured Iraqi documents that the Pentagon went through include a letter from 8/17/02 by Iraqi intell to keep an eye out for Zarqawi and an associate.
A Boston Globe article 3/16/06 wrote:
"The letter said there were reports the two could be in Iraq and directed Iraqi security officials to be on the alert as a matter of 'top priority.'
"Attached were three responses in which agents said there was no evidence al-Zarqawi or the other man were in Iraq."
The Sep. 06 Senate Intelligence Committee report on U.S. prewar intelligence on Iraq said that Zarqawi left Baghdad in Nov. 02 because the government was looking for him. Baghdad did arrest some of his men, but ended up letting them all go. Jordan asked Iraq to arrest him in Oct. 02, and the government said they couldn't find him, which according to the captured documents could be true. According to the Senate Intel report, Zarqawi had entered the country before the Jordanian request in May 02.
From the Sep. Senate Report:
"Conclusion 5: Postwar information supports the Intelligence Community's assessments that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, using an alias, and members of his network, were present in Baghdad in 2002. Postwar findings indicate al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002, when he traveled to Iran and northeastern Iraq. Prewar assessments expressed uncertainity about Iraq's complicity in the presence, but overestimated the Iraqi regime's capabilities to locate them. Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
And FNord is right, Zarqawi was not part of Al Qaeda when the invasion started in 2003. Zarqawi had worked with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but thought they weren't religious enough. I think his main motivation for going to Iraq was to build up his name to become a rival to bin Laden. Even after he official pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda central, he never listened to anything they said such as cooperating with Sunni tribes and other insurgent groups, not killing people that could alienate the Sunni population, and starting the sectarian war with the Shiites.
It would have been much easier to invade Canada in response to Pearl Harbour too. Just poured across the border in a race for Ottawa to teach them uppity japs a lesson. Oh wait.
You have to decide at some point whether this war is against AQ or against all "bad muslims".
Your comment makes no sense. The Japanese would not have come to Canada to fight us. Plus it is better to fight on the enemy’s soil, in a place we choose. And this is a war against bad muslims. We killed a lot of them in Iraq and because Iraqis saw firsthand the decency of our troops and the abject evil of our enemies, they came over to our side.
Your contention that 9/11 was the rallying factor wich lead to the influx of foreign fighters in Iraq is... curious. Care to explain the logic?
It is very simple. People rally to a cause they perceive to be winning or when they see a battle being joined. I am sure recruitment into the confederate army went up after Ft. Sumter and into the Japanese army went up after Pearl Harbor. 9-11 was very much that kind of event for jihadis.
BRILLIANT! And if the locals object to us destroying thier country while we do this, we can label them "terrorists" & kill THEM, too!
The locals figured out who the terrorists and joined us to fight them.
One more point about the locals and their ideas about the US invasion of Iraq. Their elected officials thank the US for linerating Iraq:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33251
The US military is the greatest force for freedom in Human history.
Zarqawi came to Iraq because he knew the US was going to invade so he wanted to set up cells to fight them so he could make a name for himself as an international jihadist.
Why Zarqawi need to go to Iraq? There ware American in Amman and there are many US and other Special forces near the borders of Iraq before the war. So do really need to be jihadist what make difference if attack US inside Iraq or inside Jordan?
But you need to think out of the box dude.
"The US military is the greatest force for freedom in Human history."
Yes, the drugrunners of Afghanistan certainly has a greater freedom now than ever before.
anon
Zarqawi went to Iraq in 2002 because it was obvious by then that the US was going to invade. He assassinated a us official in Jordan before, but now he has the chance to attack 100,000 plus us troops and whoever else they brought along. Zarqawi wanted to make a name for himself as a terrorist and he did by going to Iraq where he could make worldwide headlines and get his jihadist membership gold card.
ps - zarqawi is widely credited for driving out much of the international aid community in 2003 when he blew up the UN and Red Cross hqs in Baghdad and helping to start the sectarian war. Was he going to get those kinds of headlines by chasing after special forces or us diplomats in Jordan?
fnord said...
"Invading Iraq (where there were NO active AQ groups) took focus away from Afghanistan (where there were lots of active AQ cells) and gave the real enemy time to recoup from the shock of the invasion."
True enough, but the FATA already gave them that recoup. Iraq was strategically harmful in a *lot* of ways, but either it stopped you going into Pakistan or it didn't.
I heard The Stupidest Fkn Guy on The Planet recently offer a rationale for invading Iraq on the grounds that it was necessary to attack/disrupt the state networks that support non-state terrorist groups.
Now he's a retard and that's a lie, but Iraq wasn't the problem there either. Whether you invaded Iraq or doubled down in Afghanistan, you still weren't going to do shit about those networks operating out of Saudi Arabia.
I had a look through the Afghanistan reconstruction funding figures back in May. To date, Australia has contributed more funds than Saudi Arabia.
All their school construction funding is on the other side of the border.
Your contention that 9/11 was the rallying factor wich lead to the influx of foreign fighters in Iraq is... curious
I'd completely agree with that assessment. Post-9/11, al Qaeda did change much more significantly from a group to an idea/cause/formula.
You would have had a shitload of Saudis, Syrians etc joining the fighting in Iraq regardless, but 9/11 certainly did something for recruiting.
The Senate intelligence report's section on Zarqawi has been widely dismissed, and for good reason: It doesn't conform with documents presently controlled by the KRG and the current cabinet, not to mention those files maintained by Jordan and Interpol and the US Army.
I have a great deal of personal understanding of this, seeing as one of my jobs in OIF was to kill Zarqawi. The Senate report was one of the great disappointments I've encountered professionally, a complete whitewash of what we and our allies actually knew.
A note of explanation: The Senate "report" section on Zarqawi actually was tied to CIA, not DoD. CIA, largely because it was dysfunctional, was NOT the lead agency on researching, finding and then killing Zarqawi. This fell to DoD and, in particular, the US Army, and specifically TF-****, of which the founder of this blog was once a member.
It strains all credibility to believe that the Baathist secret police had no clue of his identity (he presented them with his passport, and was widely known throughout the region as a terrorist leader of Afghan Arabs), either when they admitted him or later when he was treated in Baathist hospital, and even later when he and his lieutenants were granted exit visas on his Jordanian passport.
No one in Iraq believes this to be so, but some in here apparently do. As I already was at pains to say, there was no strategic or tactical alliance between the Hussein regime and formal, far-enemy al Qaeda (AQ) at any time.
But al-Zarqawi was NEVER a member of AQ, either before he journeyed to Iraq or after. His affiliation with AQ arose only through a branding exercise we've seen used in other areas of the ME, including most recently Algeria and Morocco.
AQIZ and AQ are/were very different organizations with different purposes often drawing different types of volunteers and using different revenue streams to prosecute their terror campaigns.
Hussein's regime allowed Zarqawi into Iraq, allowed him to receive medical care, never made a move either on his encampment nor Ansar al-Islam (which kept a satellite liaison office in Baghdad that was never closed), and didn't even acknowledge his existence in the northern no-man's land until pressed on the issue by KSA, Jordan, UK and US before the invasion.
kilo: I aint saying that 9/11 didnt serve as a rallying point for a lot of folks, but the idea that all those people who went to Iraq to fight would otherwise have streamed across the oceans like a lemmingswarm I find highly impropable. The concept of the sanctity of the umma, and the mass of holy sites there I think weighed much much more heavily, the concept of honour lost and the crusaders returned. As discussed here before, at least one of bin Ladens wargoals were sort-of fulfilled by the invasion, it got the US forces mostly out of SA. Wich I agree is a cesspool of depravity. And are untouchable.
snli: All of wich leaves me wondering, what exactly was the use of mr. Zarqawi to Baghdad? Was he a former baathist agent/contact in Afghanistan? Or a tool against the kurds/jordanians/whoever?
Oh, meanwhile on topic: Check out the Kilcullenbot...
http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/29
/the_david_kilcullen_fcking_stu_1_8006.php
fnord said...
"... the idea that all those people who went to Iraq to fight would otherwise have streamed across the oceans like a lemmingswarm I find highly impropable."
Yeah. Although it would've been totally cool if they came on jetskis.
I wasn't actually supporting what he wrote, which I didn't read, I was just using your quote to crowbar in something I wanted to say. Probably should have said that long arse post wasn't directed at you personally.
Speaking of crowbarring, I'm trying to think of a way to tie a post about baseball to a bit of Sawah news.
Kilo: "Although it would've been totally cool if they came on jetskis."
lol. I am visualizing the AQ jetskiassault on New York right now. A dark line on the horizon... The omnius sound of jetskis... Cue music...
Mind you, many of the Saudis could have borrowed daddys yacht fro the trip, and called Prince Bandar to make the paperwork disappear. Seriously, thank heavens that religious fanatics are in many ways stupid even when they are smart. Channelling von Riper, if Id been Zarqawi I sure wouldnt have wasted 2-3000 foreign nationals in a meatgrinder when each of them could have been used as a cruisemissile. AQI sort of more or less defeated themselves, Insh Allah..
" of wich leaves me wondering, what exactly was the use of mr. Zarqawi to Baghdad? "
He killed the right kinds of Kurds, Fnord.
It also should be remembered that Iraq wasn't the only nation that allowed a known Afghan Arab terrorist to transit their borders. Syria and Iran also allowed Zarqawi in and out. They also had interests in allowing a known Afghan Arab to move through their states, and many of the reasons were the same as Iraq's.
Some things to consider:
1. The new Hashemite regency in Amman was quite different from the previous one, and no longer allied itself with the Baath regime. Jordan really had no sway on Iraq's Baath.
2. The no-fly zone gave a certain cachet to irregular forces willing to contest space (or, as far as Ansar al-Islam was concerned, deny space) with the Kurdish parties. Saddam allowed Ansar al-Islam to develop and grow because it served his interests of destabilizing the Kurdish proto-state that was protected by American airpower. Zarqawi wasn't the only wanted foreign fighter at the camps when the first missiles hit. They all arrived through Iraqi border controls.
3. Only when Iraq began to take some heat for Zarqawi's existence and the growth of Ansar al-Islam did the Baath government even acknowledge that he was there (they had known he was there because they had allowed him in and granted him and his lieutenants exit visas to Syria). It should be noted that Syria also acted as the hub for Baathist intelligence officers who had fled Iraq after the invasion and Ansar al-Islam/ Ansar al-Sunna survivors to start a nascent revolt against the occupation.
The Baathist secret police were many things, but they weren't stupid. These agents knew they were admitting Zarqawi into their nation, and they knew with whom he was allying himself, and where.
I do not believe for a second Iraqi agents ever expected Zarqawi to serve as anything but a Kurd killer and a minor threat to the Jordanians. He was a known near-enemy Afghan Arab. He wasn't going to start plowing jets into Big Ben or the Super Bowl.
Once the heat was on, however, and the invasion loomed, they tried to ditch him. After the invasion, the very same men who would've ditched him, however, embraced him again as a friend.
SNLII, thanks very much for taking the time to educate us on this matter (as with so many others).
This is the second time recently that someone who this blog finds highly intelligent has been portrayed unfavorably by a reporter to whom they granted an interview. [recall Gentile, Yochi Dreazen]
I'm a bit confused as to why such intelligent people who are in positions that regularly interact with the media are getting caught up in statements to reporters that do not portray what they wished.
I am a bit confused by the lack of calls for the military to invest in some PR training for its officers and NCOs, at all levels. I'm sure they receive training but at times their skills do not seem to be on par with that of a mid-level political operative or public relations professional.
The military's goal should be raising our soliders' skills to such a level that not getting caught by an off the cuff statement is no longer a concern and strategic use of the media is a weapon they wield as easily as their rifles.
That said, I relish the fact that our military officers are men of character who don't hide behind slick talking points and carefully worded non-committal statements but at some point the management of the media has to become a greater part of their training.
I do not mean any disrespect to either of these men and greatly appreciate their intelligence, but the mistakes that were made by them were unexpected from a person of their caliber.
--Also, I don't know who jacked up my handle halfway down the thread but that wasn't me (although they have some good points).
Ken,
I was mulling that over yesterday. Two points:
Kilcullen is not a serving American officer. He's an Australian.
Having once spent a fairly long span training in jungle warfare with RAR in Queensland, I would suggest that Australians in general, and servicemen in particular, have a fairly unrestrained view of profanity, tending to treat the f-bomb and other verboten terms in polite society as punctuation.
This doesn't bother me, because I do, too.
Second, when you drop the f-bomb like that at the beginning of an interview, you tend to understand that it was tacitly off the record because no major media outlet would print it, air it or otherwise convey it.
That Kilcullen has questioned the sagacity of the invasion of Iraq isn't newsworthy. It's been well known for a fairly long time. As in the Royal Australian regiments, our officers and NCOs (and everyone else) discusses similar concerns all the freakin' time.
What made it newsworthy, however, was the over-the-top way it was said and then replicated by Attackerman on his blog.
It wasn't just that an adviser (notice the "e," Kip) to DoS thought the invasion and occupation were bad ideas, but that they were f-ing bad ideas.
The problem is that the novelty of the epithet overwhelmed the points both Kilcullen and Attackerman were trying to make, which was the publication of a new Kilcullen-brand study of COIN, strategy and (fill in the blank here).
Now, I would argue that Metz at Carlisle was making some of the same points over the past few years. But he didn't drop the f-bomb in the middle of the publications to punctuate his perspective -- nor did he snag a gig with Condi -- so he's somewhat overlooked.
That's a pity, because if you get to the heart of what Kilcullen and Metz and, yes, Gian Gentile are saying, one is left with a fairly important issue to discuss.
Instead, we find ourselves discussing an Australian's randy language, a reporter's peevish blog and al-Zarqawi's arrival in Iraq on jetskis.
snli: its a bit hard to discuss the actual text as long as its not revealed yet.
snli: Since you obviously know this story, out of personal interest: Zarqawi was more or less a hospitant at Ansar al-Islam? From what I have read (and our media has been full of every detail due to the mullah living here as a hostage, in his own home) they were more or less a hardcore militant religious sect, no?
(You shouldnt have outed mr. Mesh, btw, i could sick journos on him now and earn cash beacause of it...)
zarqawi is widely credited for driving out much of the international aid community in 2003 when he blew up the UN and Red Cross hqs in Baghdad
It has become popular with former supporters of the war to blame the Iraqis for the Americans' failure. The Iraqis did not choose democracy or the Iraqis did not choose freedom, Americans like to say, or the Iraqis have to decide to stop killing each other or Iraqis have to "step up." But such complaints misplace the blame. Sunni and Shia Iraqis protested the American occupation as soon as it began, and demanded elections and sovereignty. The U.S. ignored their demands and instead imposed a dictator on them, Paul Bremer, hoping he would pave the way for an Iraqi strongman to rule in our stead. Other former supporters of the war, echoing the simplistic sentiments heard during the Balkan wars, now blame the alleged "ancient hatred" between Sunnis and Shias, who have been fighting each other for "thousands of years." But Iraq had no history of civil war or sectarian violence even approaching this scale until the Americans arrived. Iraq is not Rwanda, where Hutus and Tutsis slaughtered each other and America could pretend it had no role. We did this to Iraq. And it is time the U.S and the international community "step up" to the resulting humanitarian nightmare.
Nir Rosen
Well, if Nir Rosen says it's true...
SNLII,
I agree with many of your points, especially your identification of the problem.
I would point out that knowing the subtle differences between granting an interview to a major news outlet and a blogger is just the sort of fine detail a top level communicator possesses by contrast. The differences between what different bloggers will and won't publish, the lack of formality of the interview contrasted with the source's disproportionately elite readership, and understanding it's ability to be picked up by a MSM source and disseminated on a much wider scale almost instantly. That's the very sort of skill that may be missing I fear.
I also realized your point about Kilcullen being an Australian immediately after I posted that and in retrospect would have written it differently. I think my point is for Western military officers across national boundaries however.
Even though he is not an US Army officer that is the country he is fighting with and employing him and thus being perceived as criticizing them unfortunately reflects poorly on him.
نجل المالكي يقود إنقلاباً إداراياً داخل مكاتب رئاسة الوزراء
الوسط
http://www.sotaliraq.com/iraqnews.php?id=23518
Ansar al-Islam is still active in northern Iraq. They are a Kurdish Islamist group that has connections to Al Qaeda central in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Iranians. After the Afghan invasion a couple hundred fighters fled to Ansar's bases in Kurdistan. When the U.S. invaded, the group went to Iran to hide out. They have bases there and carry out operations to this day. 3 just got arrested in Kirkuk a day or two ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iS-BOxTwA
Iraq had no history of civil war or sectarian violence even approaching this scale until the Americans arrived
yeha right just the halabja gas attacks, the diversion of water from the Marsh Arabs and the ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk.
Buck, Mao killed millions of his own countryman and America did not intervene. Now our nation is in debt to his heirs.
I don't give a rat's ass about marsh arabs, plains arabs, urban arabs, or intergalactic arabs, I care about dead American soldiers killed in a "stupid" war.
Maybe Kilcullen termed the war "f'ing stupid" because this nightmare was cooked up by the most stupid f'er in the world, Doug Feith.
yeha right just the halabja gas attacks, the diversion of water from the Marsh Arabs and the ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk.
Can we ask what your info about halabja?
From 1989 to 1990 the gassing was mentioned about once a month in major press outlets, yet in the three weeks leading up to the 2003 invasion, the press mentioned it 150 times. In 15 years the gassing went from an untold story to a pretext for invasion. [Includes transcript]
Also what your info about Marsh Arabs?
I am not going to tell you, but each country have its own problems, but if your media (presuming you are from US) very biased and laying on you just like what lies sparred before the invasion your country rushed to the Iraq and invaded.
So be careful when you put your word here.
Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, closely studied evidences of "genocide in Halabja" has described his group's findings:
"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."
Btw, Today Marsh Arabs have a lot of problems if you think that US invasion solved their problem you are dammin blind.
Remember that same halabja Kurds themselves they destroyed the statues and memorial that you're stupid Paul Bremer made for them.
If that the case this very serous about the halabja massacre then?
Last thing to say if you crying for halabja how you feel about Israelis when the dropped millions of cluster bombes in 72 hours in south Lebanon, Nasrallah still live and they swapped dead bodies with Nasrrallah folks!! or you cry just for Kurds and Marsh Arabs?? or others are not humans?
"the manual draws on a central insight of her dissertatoin"
Charlie must have been tippling the wine when she wrote this one. If her dissertation has insights, that's really not for her to say. Blue skies! -- Dan Ford (a handsome and very bright fella, even if he says so himself)
Yes, the drugrunners of Afghanistan certainly has a greater freedom now than ever before.
Fnord, given the choice, then, do you think that the people of Afghanistan would choose the Taliban?
"""Iraq had no history of civil war or sectarian violence even approaching this scale until the Americans arrived"""
"yeha right just the halabja gas attacks, the diversion of water from the Marsh Arabs and the ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk."
Well, no. Not like them at all. They have literally nothing in common. You simply do not appear to understand what you are quoting.
vimothy: wich of the peoples of Afghanistan are we talking about? Sic Semper Tyrannis has a excellent post about the concept of Afghan Man...
This is like listening to two Athenians discussing how to proceed forward on the beaches of Sicily during the siege of Syracuse. People of Thebes are very pleased by this level of effort.
Ken, in many ways Attackerman and even Charlie kind of missed the really antagonistic thing allegedly said by Kilcullen recently.
The COIN community is a small one (and I'm not exactly liked within it which might explain why I've been banned from SWJ), and this is so even in the international set.
British officers recently were a bit miffed due to a panel discussion moderated by Kilcullen and including John Nagl and Daniel Martson.
For those who don't know Martson, he's an outstanding scholar at The Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. He also is an adviser to UK's Ministry of Defence.
Martson unflatteringly said that the British were recently "close to humiliation" in Basra and pointed to ongoing British problems in OEF's Helmand Province.
For his part, Kilcullen said the British were "defeated" in southern Iraq.
The entire panel kind of degenerated into a bash-the-Brits exercise.
Charlie, your research was specifically mentioned alongside their critique, so I'm not sure if the British Embassy has asked you for an apology over crumpets and tea.
AM (Ex) said: (Boys, I'm pretty sure Dave Kilkullen isn't averse to kicking a little al-Qaeda ass. But al-Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq until we invaded. And it's not as if al-Qaeda is a set number of people we need to kill before we can go home and go back to drinking PBR while watching the Sox game. al-Qaeda's numbers swell and ebb depending on recruits. Iraq, for al-Qaeda, was a gift in terms of recruitment. Dave Kilcullen is right. Invading Iraq was stupid.
And SWJED (Dave D.) of Small Wars Journal agrees to the last period in the last sentence.
snli: Would lovew to hear more details on the bash-the-brits arguments. Is there any summation available online of the meeting?
Invading Iraq was stupid.
Yes, now that we have all that captured intel we got only because we invaded, it looks stupid.
Based on what was known at the time, what the politicians were being briefed, and the fact the Saddam had thousands of people engaged in a massive effort to hide something (turns out it was that he had dismantled or outsourced his physical WMD assets), yes now it's stupid.
Then again, the silver linings are present as well. Like discredting AQ (or rather letting their excesses discredit themselves), introducing the virus of democracy into the M.E, and killing a shitload of people who would have been headed to London, NY, L.A etc to raise havoc on our soil.
What should we have done, left him in business? Please do not say he was "contained". He was training and funding terrorists, making contacts with them in Afghanistan, the Philipines, etc. Then there's Salman Pak.
And I don't care what task force you were on, how many languages you speak, how many degrees you have. That 707 at Salman Pak, and the training that took place there was not to train anti-terrorist forces on how to take back a hijacked airline. I mean, LOL. Salman Pak is casus belli, all on it's own. Forgive my strident tone on this last point.
As far as him using the F-Bomb, who the Hell is the media (part of, and usually owned by the rest of the entertainment industry) to complain about profane language? Good grief. That's like the Nazi's complaining about someone making a racial slur.
"...killing a shitload of people who would have been headed to London, NY, L.A etc to raise havoc on our soil."
The "Gotta kill them over there so they don't kill us over here" theory is the weakest argument the democracy spreaders make.
If we secured our borders, deported all muslim non-citizens, and refused muslim immigration, they could not get here to kill us.
Unfortunately, this war will actually increase the numbers of muslims in America. Once we allow wholesale numbers of refugees from Iraq, we will defintely have a home grown terrorist problem. The children of these refugees will be blowing up shit for a long time under the protection of the US Constitution and lawyers like Ron Kuby.
Bosnian muslim refugees in NJ conspired to kill at FT Dix. A Bosnian Muslim killed several innocents during an attack at a Utah shopping mall.
The Iraqi refugee onslaught will be much worse.
Anon 9:50
Congrats on getting to the right of me. Someone give Fnord some schnaaps before he passes out.
"The "Gotta kill them over there so they don't kill us over here" theory is the weakest argument the democracy spreaders make."
Really? I thought WMD was our weakest argument (it was. That's why the Chimp in Chief went with it, he found his level).
My argument above, which borrows from Takfiri terms (the near/far enemy) would actually run more thus: If we don't kill them off our soil, we will be having retalitory massacres of Muslims on our soil.
Your prescription for deporting non-citizen Muslims doesn't address the question of what to do about Muslim Citizens who are inducted into terror. By GWB's best friends, the Saudi's.
Whom would be Elf's target number one.
Wholesale immigration from Iraq: won't be necessary if we don't leave them to die like the boat people. BTW some of the boat people in 1975 on were former Communists or NLF. You notice they didn't bring the war over.
But what we are talking about is letting in the ones who trusted us, and who have been vetted, and moreover proven themselves.
If we don't punk out, I think our relationship with the Iraqi's decades hence will be similar to our relationship with the Philipines - once we proved our valor to each other, then faced a much worse common enemy, we became quite close. Sadly the Philipines and probably Iraq will continue to be plagued by internal dysfunctions, which we should stay out of settling and offer what aid we can.
You are about 200 years behind the power curve on fortress America. For chrissake even the Iron Curtain wasn't impentrable. I guess all trade stops as well? Close the border with Canada, which has at least as many radicals as London. Oh, they're cut off as well. So long chaps.
Finally, you still do not address the problem of all the people in countries overseas who want to kill us or force us to submit.
I really do advocate the offense, having seen us have a bad day on defense (we sucked that day). And given safe haven and funding overseas, they will find more holes.
Hail, Fortress America :))))
There’s a new Colonel in command in Fallujah. PJ O’Rourke described him as a formidable man. “Some call him a genius. Others blame him for the deaths of millions. There are those who say his military reputation was inflated.” Yes, it’s Colonel Harland Sanders. The North Shore Journal reports that Kentucky Fried Chicken, Fallujah is now open for business
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/
I love the smell of fried chicken in the morning. Smells like victory.
elf: From linguistic signature, anon 9.50 is our mate Kyle, who thinks burning gypsies is quite OK. Human trash, etc. If Im wrong, he is part of the same possie in his arguments.
"The North Shore Journal reports that Kentucky Fried Chicken, Fallujah is now open for business"
Hubris. Can you spell t-a-r-g-e-t? But hey, its nice if Fallujah is becoming your all-american friendly town. I would like to go there.
Ken - I 'jacked up your handle' - or used my name in posting. If I post again, i'll go with KP
Granted anonymity is essential for some posters, but where it's not, it's good to know who's who. So, this is me:
http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/fellowships/visiting_fellows/kenneth_payne.html
Cheers, KP
kp-
Statement was in jest. I posted for the first time here under my google name and ended up with my 'handle' the same way.
I think anybody that comes here and brings good ideas is good people in my book.
Keep posting.
tibia money tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape money runescape gold runescape gp runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling cheap rs2 powerleveling runescape equipment buy rs equipment runescape runes cheap rs2 runes runescape logs cheap rs2 logs runescape items buy runescape items runescape quest point rs2 quest point cheap runescape questpoint runescape gold runescape items runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape accounts runescape gp runescape accounts runescape money runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling tibia gold dofus kamas buy dofus kamas wow power leveling wow powerleveling runescape questpoint rs2 questpoint Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling Hellgate money Hellgate gold buy runescape logs buy rs2 items cheap runescape items Hellgate London gold Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape items rs2 accounts cheap rs2 equipments lotro gold buy lotro gold buy runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape runes lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling eve isk eve online isk buy runescape power leveling rs2 power leveling tibia gold tibia item runescape accounts Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold SilkRoad Gold buy SilkRoad Gold Scions of Fate Gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium SOF Gold Age Of Conan Gold AOC Gold ArchLord gold tibia money tibia gold runescape accounts runescape gold cheap rs2 powerleveling buy ArchLord gold DDO Plat Dungeons and Dragons Online Plat
LBJ sent US troops to South Vietnam because Le Duan decided to change the guerrilla war into a regular units war of maneuvre using the North Vietnames Army (NVA). So our forces went into South Vietnam to fight North Vietnam's forces, not to fight a war against South Vietnamese guerrillas. By 1967, according to Hanoi Commanders, Westmoreland had won the attrition struggle, causing the desperate Tet 168 Offensive by Hanoi, setting off, not to win militarily, but to make points at the Paris negotiations. As Le Duc Tho told a Viet Communist Party Historical Review in 1984, the Viet Cong was a minor annoyance to Saigon and it had no power in the cities. As South Vietnam went from 85% rural to 75% urban, the peasant sea left the gurrilla high and dry, going "bourgeois" as urbanites, per Hanoi Radio. So, we lost politically but honorably. By contrast, it is no wonder that Kilcullen called Iraq "that stupid f--en war." WE CREATED THE IRAQ INSURGENCY because we went into Iraq intelligence blind, language deaf and culture dumb. To keep down our losses we humiliated the Iraqis and destroyed any feeling that we were liberators by behaving as occupiers, no, colonizers. The generals knew we were too few so they sought to terrorize Iraqis with out night time raids, mass arrests and massacre from the air with drones. We created 80% unemployment and removed the Saddam Welfare State, replacing it with "free-crooked-enterprise" for Bush's corporate friends, leaving Iraqis to starve. Bangladeshis were imported to do the job of serving our occupation because they were cheap and would not expose their crooked Halliburton employers to the press. Besides, no one trusted Iraqis in their own country . We offered them mysery and humiliation whil our "allies" the the Saudi/Kuwaiti bankers offered them cash to blow us up. Seeing the Sunni uprising and US Army's helplessness (except to massively massacre, a la Fallujah, as trained to do by the Israelis), the Iranians broke their deal with Bush and began supporting a Shia counterinsurgency. America's response was war crimes because the Pentagon followed Israel's advice: "the only good Arab is a dead Arab." The surge is a myth and Kilkullen is a mere propagandists who knows that Americans suffer from the "ain't my kid going to Iraq" disconnect syndrome and will accept any reasonable sounding excuse to cover the real reason for their support of the war: TO FILL 'ER UP CHEAP OUR SUVS. That the surge is a myth was obvious from the start in that it payed cash and guns to insurgents to support the US presence without caring a fig if the "elected" Baghdad Government was against it. Petreaus calls it "victory" because US casualties were temporarily decreased. But he calls it "fragile" because he knows that our killer squads did not destroy the hate of US occupation so if we stop paying them, the Sunnis will shoot us in the back as we leave. The surge pushed all the Shias into Iran's camp, including Prime Minister Maliki. For this Americans and ten times as many Iraqis payed with their lives? It is up to the autor of DERELICTION OF DUTY to call the genrals " star whores" for the way they were parrots of Rumsfeld's shoulders and then covered up the no-strategy phony "victory" Bush needed for long enough that the failure of Petraeus's COIN " fragile victory" collapses and will by then be called "Obama's War." NO one can claim to be a loyal American unless he/she considers all our troops as "my" kids and not allow to be done to them what he/she would not allow to be done with his/her biologic kids. Our generals are like our citizens: self-centered and short-sighted... that spells the end for the American version of the Roman Empire.
Post a Comment