Yet another Iraq "I hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so," situation
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html


Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

Other than reports and studies, the council produces classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues.

Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid being drawn into partisan politics.

Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade."

The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors.

No, no no. The world is a safer place now. The world is a safer place now. The world is a safer place now...

Five years after the U.S. removes the significant portion of its military strength from Iraq, the country will be, in effect, an Islamic state.* What Bush thinks Iran is now, in fact.

*Well, the bottom two-thirds will. The top third will be a de facto Kurdish state, which will piss the Turks off to no end, further hindering U.S. diplomacy in the ME.

Well, it is also a haven for would-be terrorists deaths. So we've got that going for us.

Terrorist recruiter: "We're going to send you to Faluja to get some real life experience."
Would-be terrorist: "What does that mean?"
Terrorist recruiter: "Well, you'll fight Americans and learn their tactics."
Would-be terrorist: "F### you. I'm going to Morocco to train on the beach."

I say we trade the Alphabet and some furs with India now so that Prime Minister Gandhi likes us in the future. I don't trust that Mao Tse Tung at all.

:D :D

"Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!"

drop the sex bomb on them and all will be well

I'd rather have the terrorists in Iraq up against heavily armed US soldiers than anywhere else in the world.

The point of the article is the that Iraq is giving terrorist a "training and breeding ground" to export terrorism everywhere in the world.

Could have never seen that coming. :rolleyes:

You would? I still think it would have been better to have activated all the forces used for Iraq and have sent them all into Afghanistan. We might have actually caught Osama bin Laden that way. While actually cleaning out Afghanistan (ie, not holding troops back for Iraq), they could find out they had bad intelligence and not go around the world insisting Saddam had things that he didn't. That way we would have had a better chance to resolve the bin Laden issue finally, and not have blown all of our credibility getting bogged down in another quagmire.

Maybe we don't create a new battle-hardened mujahadeen in Iraq if we finish the business in Afghanistan first...just a thought. Now we have unfinished business in multiple places and the world news doesn't paint as peaceful a picture as the Bush Administration does.

The article gives the impression that this has started since the US military overthrew the government. If you believe Bush, they were training terrorists there all along with the financing and blessing of Saddam himself.

Your pathetic civilization makes us laugh. Were it not for that accursed wall, we would destroy you.

We see you have one tiny speck of land that is untouched by your decadant culture. We shall send our settler across your entire country to colonize it. Don't like it? TOUGH!

Ahhh...the Great Wall. Those were the days.

Oh, you have tanks in 1500AD? You want my cities?

TOO BAD, KHAN!!!

Update:

CIA Director Porter Goss and Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, confirm and reiterate details of the report this week.


There's a lot more in the article, but it's really all spelled out in the OP.

lets just pull our troops out and drop a nuke-ya-lur bomb.

That's the type of sophisticated response I expect from the leader of the free world.

Note the article says "unintended consequence" not "unforseen." I think we can take the third-world Unabombers.

"...to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq,"

Well, duh.

That's why you don't leave any "experienced survivors -- you make them "dead experienced terrorists". And those who do escape, you hunt them down & kill them.
Sheesh, this really isn't brain surgery folks.

I agree. Why then, isn't the Administration doing this?

One day at a time flere, one day a time. The festering cesspool was not created in a day & cannot be cleaned up in a day, at least not via any practical means, that's just an unhappy & unfortunate truth of the situation.

Well, all reports point to Al-Qaida completely lacking a presence in pre-invasion Iraq, and how many days did the "invasion" of Iraq take?

Umm ... you do realize that al-Qaida isn't the only terrorist group out there, right?

{FTR, I'm not trying to be a complete smartass, I just don't quite follow your point given that fact}

My point is that Iraq now (and for the forseeable future) is more of a terrorist breeding-ground than it was before.

And where did all of those new terrorists breed from? Oh yeah, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

So the question becomes would you rather have 1000 terrorists in Afghanistan, 1000 in Syria, 1000 in Iraq, 1000 in Iran and 1000 in SA - or 5000 in Iraq sprinkled around about 120,000 heavily armored US troops?

That's a tough one to answer...

Did you see those Huns?? They popped out of the snow! Like daisies!"

-Mushu

one of the few times i agree with you.

Obviously this is easier said than done. We were going to smoke Osama bin Laden out over 3 years ago and we still don't know where he is.

That's the hard part. They keep hiding.

So the U.S.'s goal was to make a honeypot for terrorists in Iraq?

1. You can't be serious.
2. You can't be serious if you believe that all the terrorists will concentrate in Iraq.

I mean to be just a little serious. I think they described it as an "unintended consequence" not a master plan. The admin is simply spinning this into the best light possible. They are making lemonade out of the fact that Terrorists have moved into Iraq after the removal of Hussein to fight the American Imperialists or are we Infidels to the terrorists. The Baathists call of Imperialists.

Lately, basically post-Fallujah, it seems these reports like "Terrorism exported from Iraq to other Gulf States" - like Jordan, Kuwait, I think Yemen too, but I don't remember exactly. And you know why they are doing this? Because we're killing and/or running ragged the ones that stay behind. The jihadis are not Iraqis (although a lot of the attacks there are committed by Iraqis, those are pretty much all common criminals in it for the bountys provided - coming from where? Mainly Syrian funds established by Saddam.) Where are the jihadis coming from? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sudan, etc. Coming mostly through Syria, getting direction and funding mostly from there. Kind of hard to eradicate the problem when you can't attack the base of operations. So are we doing anything about it now? I believe so, a lot of border security is being worked on and improved slowly. In a larger context, events in Lebanon as well as the US military's new directive that US forces are now allowed to chase terrorists into Syrian territory seem to point to a lot going on under the surface there. IMO, one by one we're trying to go after each of the failed middle eastern dictatorships that have spawned terrorism (of course you can't exactly come out and say to, for example, the Saudis that once the rest of these work you're up because they'd start working even more against us.) In the long-term, I'd be a lot more worried about places like Southern Thailand and the African countries along the Muslim-Christian divide as terrorism breeding grounds. But that's just my opinion based on what I have seen.

The word "terrorist" is being tossed around like they are some sort of set army, or a race of people. This is a ideology that we are inflaming, location is irrelevant.

We have inticed a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, because of our actions in invading Iraq. There has always been a divide between the two, everyone knows that - so surely our government would forsee a high probability of a civil war between the two, once we invaded and "liberated" them. But we did nothing or just flat out didnt care that a war would breakout between the two.

Then you have to look at how the Sunnis and Shiites war with one another? Car bombs, random rpg attacks, etc... terrorism. So in turn we've created even more terrorists who now have multiple causes.

Add that to the outsiders who strictly want us out of the middle east, and just want Americans dead... we are creating terrorists at an exponential rate, all over the world. They may or may not come to Iraq, they may just stew in their fanaticism until one day they snap, or even worse they know a lot of people just like them and they form a cell and formulate some major attack on the US or any of its allies.

You think all of them were "terrorists" before we went into Iraq?

Or do you think our actions have inspired some of them to take arms?

I dunno about a Civil War. I think we are a ways off from that sort of escalation. As for us doing nothing or not caring that there might be a war between the two. I think that is pretty misguided. We implemented a process that would put them on the road to a Constitution with the types of Freedoms they haven't really experienced before including protections to minority populations. I don't think it is fair to say that because not all of the Sunnis have embraced that situation yet is proof that the US didn't care what happened to them.

The Civil War part is just my forecast of the situation, its not there yet - but based off todays events and the last year, things are escalating between the two and I think its pretty undeniable thats where this is headed.

As far as any processess weve tried to put in place, like the elections, I thought it was pretty well known in advance the Sunnis would boycott any US lead elections? With that knoweldge, isnt it a confirmation of a impending civil war? If they dont recognize the government, then thats pretty much all you can gather of whats going to happen. I wouldnt be so resolute in this civil war assumption if the vast majority of Sunnis did not take part in the elections.

Hasnt anyone else noticed the crazy increase in civilian casualties since the election?

In the Iraqi Occupation there ARE Iraqi freedom fighters.

Now, the US may want to call them terrorist, but a lot of them are just people trying to defend their homes and their way of life. Their country has been invaded their way of life has been taken away; Just how would you act if this happened to you?

What is so hard to understand? Some people will fight for their homes, families, and personal freedom untill they are dead, dead, dead. Or untill the invading force leaves.

Hell, why don't we just send Jack Bauer over there.. he can clear up this whole problem in 24 hours.. by himself

So would this apply to those Iraqis risking their lives to vote and hopefully control their own destiny, or from the 'resistance' led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who has "declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," and denounced the Shi'a (a majority of Iraqis) as heretics and "the most evil of mankind." ?

Do not assume that, just because the US and our allies do not have entirely altruistic motives in mind, most/many among those fighting against us are simply nationalists, motivated by what they think is best for their country and its people as a whole. Because, well, it's not true in this case, if it has ever been. No offense, but the two groups have never been particularly enamored of one another, and I'm curious as to why you think the situation has gotten worse. Assuming the al-Zarqawi memo was true, there have been those trying to ignite a civil war for some thime now, (and we could even go back to when Saddam was in power, the '91 massacring etc) but thanks to restrained leadership by the likes of Sistani the Shi'as have abstained from retaliation and militarizing along religious lines. Civil Wars are almost never started because of ethnic/religious motives. They are started for economic reasons (largely Sunni Baath Party trying to regain its power and money) and unfortunately become radicalized because as much as some would like to pretend its a nationalist uprising, its really a small portion of the population trying to regain its diproportionate power and thus eventually the only recruits that can be found are from said group (usually tribal, but occasionally also religious and/or ethnic/geographic lines).

And when it comes to elections, I think it'd be wonderful if/when everyone has an equal say, but as the beginnings of this country proved, universal suffrage is not necessary to establish a functioning democracy.Link? I've seen numbers indicating a marked drop-off in attacks on coalition forces since the election (still too small a sample size to extrapolate from) so if you can show me hard numbers on things like attacks on civilians, or attacks on ING/IP, or # of those murdered by bombings/attacks going up, I'd like to see it.

This is what always gets me. A free Iraq??? Believe it or not, before the US invaded there were people in Iraq who were Happy, who enjoyed their lives, who enjoyed their freedom under "their" leadership, and who simply just loved their country and their leaders.

Do you mean the thousands of people the US allowed to vote or the millions of Iraqi's who could not or would not vote?

All I was saying was this report should not call everyone in Iraq that takes up arms against Americans Terrorist. Some of them are just simply trying to defend their property and their way of life. I have read this article and many others exactly like it that absolutely refuse to believe that their are Iraqi Freedom Fighters just trying to defend their land and their way of life any way they can.

You simply can NOT call anyone who is just trying to defend their Family, their homes, their Way Of Life Terrorists!!! Like it or not We are the invaders over their.

I think you've been watching too much Fahrenheit 9/11 and not paying attention to what actual Iraqis are saying/have said about that time period. (To stave off a technical point - yes there were undoubtedly some, but such a miniscule percentage that it is ridiculous to consider their welfare above that of the other 90/95+ %)Umm, about 8 million out of an estimated 14 million voted. For perspective, that's about the % that vote in US Presidential elections, where the threat of violence is non-existent. So you might want to flip millions or thousands in that sentence, if at least so we can skip directly to the arguments that the voting was meaningless/installed a theocracy beholden to Iran/only marginalized the Sunnis more and ensured a Civil War would break out/was only because their religious leaders told them to vote/was just like the elections in Vietnam and see how that turned out/ - I'm sure there are more I'm missing, feel free to pick one from above or add a different reason why a majority of the Iraqis showing up to vote in the face of death threats was a bad thing and/or showed we are losing....and Al-Zarqawi's network of foreign jihadis which have found American troops too hard a target and have mostly resorted to bombing Iraqi citizens, oftentimes indiscriminately, have denounced the religion of ~60% of Iraqis and issued a death threat to all 8 million who voted in the election are what, exactly? Comrades welcomed with open arms and gratitude?

Yeah, they were all peaceful farmers that loved the US before we entered Iraq. Then, they through down their shovels and joined Al Qaeda.

Come on, there's been serious terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel and Iran for years. These people have a vested interest in not seeing Iraq settle into a democratic form of government and the US troops have pretty much wiped out most of the Iraqi-based terrorists by now. Their options are to stay in Syria and plot international acts, continue to suicide bomb in Israel or flock to Iraq with hopes they can eventually force the US people to lose their resolve and leave.

As an aside, has anyone noticed the large drop in terrorist activity in Syria and the much lower number of Palestinian suicide bombing incidents in the past year? I guess that's a coincidence as well.

Your parallel would hold some merit if a very large chunk of the remaining insurgents weren't of foreign origin. The reality is that almost all the native Iraqis left are beginning to embrace this change as evident by the large election turnout and recent opinion polls.

And in addition now they are focused Totally on the US as to before when there interested with us was probably one of a number of targets they had. It is never a good thing to attract attacks on our own soldiers.

I got to agree with you 100%. The location is irrelevant it is a state of mind.

I found this article and a yahoo news article that questioned the accuracy of the 14 million voter number.



Officials Back Away form Early Iraq Election Turnout





Iraq election

So, again, even if it's closer to 45% instead of 57%, that's still well inline with most national elections. In the US, we had 51% turnout in 2000 and 49% in 1996. It seems to me everyone is bickering on where the turnout was on the scale of 45 to 60%. No matter where it is, it's right in line with US turnout. And I doubt anyone is going to state the elections in 1996 or 2000 were "illegitimate" because of turnout.

Thats some pretty weak rationale. Do you honestly believe that a countries first ever election would or should have a 45% turnout? Do you think if we had national elections in 1780, that we would have only a 45% turnout? We rode mid to low 60% turnout rates all through the 50's and 60's... and even with a complacent, coddled, nothing to care about society that we have in America today, we still hover in the 50's %.

Iraq is nothing like America and has been nothing like America for 1000's of years longer than weve been in existance, so Amercias turnout numbers are completely irrelevant on every imaginable level.

Ahhhh...............what he said. :D

Agree 100%!

Ive just been reading the world news like I always do... civilian attacks are up, there has been at least 500 killed in and around Baghdad since the elections, all Sunni/Shiite related attacks. None of which were credited to Zarqawi. Yesterday there were 30+ killed ina car bombing at a Shiite religious ceremony, today another 16 (same way).. couple days before that there were another 40... its escalating. Sunnis HATE Shiites. Its just not a simple religious difference, its a deep disdain. Add on that now Shiites run the show... look out.

I could honestly care less about Zarqawi, of course its obvious his death is good, but hes just one guy and there are millions waiting in line to take his place. He can do nothing to widen the Sunni/Shi' gap, there has been a multitude of Sunni attacks on Sunnis. A few by Zaraqwi-ists is just pouring salt on a already gaping wound.

...and another 50 dead today, while I typed that last post....

hxxp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

And your contention is that Americans killed those people? What a jerk.

So, the continuing car bombings and assassinations are what? A mirage?

Am i missing something? How in the hell did you get that conclusion? Ive never mentioned Americans killing ANYONE in any of my posts. Between your insurgency comment and this, i have a feeling your not reading any of these posts.

"WHY DO YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM?" -typical wartard

Maybe I misread this. But my contention is that the United States did not create this problem, we are trying to correct it.

The only way to correct it would be to draw new borders.

BTW, we may not have created the problem, but we're most certainly fanning the flames.

Perhaps if journalists were *allowed* to report on Saddam Hussein's atrocities in grueling day to day action for the last 30 years you would see things differently.

I do agree on the "draw new borders" but I don't think Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, or the UN would agree.

Saddam is scum. I don't need to read anything further in regards to that. However, I think he was merely a pawn in this game. There are plenty of brutal dictators in this world to take out, if that's our goal.

That being said, I think the "destabilization" of the country has sparked this stuff, and once we leave, it's going to blow up.

That's just my opinion, anyways.

Maybe I'm too Machiavellian, but if someone is determined to attack Americans, I'd rather have them going after our soldiers in a foreign country than attacking civilians over here.The 14 million was more or less based on UN Food ration cards. So claiming that 80%+ of registered voters vote in the US (which, quite honestly, seems a little high to me) while only ~45% of eligible Iraqis voted seems a very disingenous comparison of apples and oranges, only advanced if the person is trying to portray the Iraqi election in a worse light.No, I don't, because well, in 1789 the first time an election occurred, women weren't allowed to vote, almost all black people were not allowed to vote, and I think poor or illiterate white men weren't allowed to vote either. It would have been statistically impossible to have 45% of the voting-age population turn out until at least 1920, but that seemed to work out in the long run. Actually looking at the numbers, it appears George Washington may have gotten a grand total of 69 votes in the first election (unless states had votes to apportion their electors, but I doubt that) and 12 others (NY/Ohio) didn't even bother to cast their votes, while 2 other states that would join under Washington's presidency (RI/NC) weren't allowed to vote. But, as you say, comparing the Iraqi election to an American one over 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous.Yet the article you choose to illustrate your point says attacks "Back to pre-election levels" and says at least 3 attacks were claimed by Zarqawi's network. The elections were not a panacea, miraculously curing all of the ills, but it is a step in the lengthy process.Pretty much every deadly attack on a She'at religious site has been claimed by Zarqawi's network. One year ago at the beginning of Ashura as well, which is partially why there are more large-scale attacks these past couple days.

Also, just out of curiosity, wouldn't this kind of put a lie to any talk of a nationalist insurgency? And then if you say it's just the small minority Sunnis fighting and this means a civil war has started, where are the attacks on Sunnis by She'ates?

No matter your (plural) views on Iraq, 25 years from now we will all be looking back at the last 3-5 years as semial. The Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians all VOTED for new leaders in a region where open elections are dangerous and rare. The Middle East is already radically different today than it was even in 2001. There is no more violence there today than before the invasion, but Americans are dying to further this change. Dissent at this point is moot. We're going to finish what was started and we're going to see more elections thereafter - militarily enduced or otherwise.

I think I didn't suggest we should continue to investigate Saddam's past.


Well, then maybe we shouldn't leave as the Bush Administration has said repeatedly, until the job is done. I'm surprised the leftist opposition who "cares" so deeply for the Iraqi people are the only ones suggesting we leave.

SunDevil,

Did you even see a slant in that story? You post the link like it's the end all be all of stories. Another beautiful example of how the media slants. Granted, it's an editorial piece, but the New York Times is not one to offer an alternative story written by somebody who disagrees.

It mentions a senior US Intelligence officer who says we should not invade Iraq. It does not mention the multitudes of senior Intelligence officers who said we should invade Iraq. It then says Bush disregarded all warnings when we all know that Bush did not in fact disregard all warnings but heeded most warnings by his intelligence services which warned about the .

It's BS, but...as long as people are buying the paper, that's what's most important.

Though it's not surprising you're being dishonest, it should probably be pointed out that there are plenty of people on the right-wing side of things that think we should abandon the region and leave them to their own devices. A fact of which you are well aware. I suppose that making rhetorically inflated comments like this allows you to cap out your "leftist" slurs for the day, but it certainly doesn't improve your reputation when it comes to these kinds of debates.

Dutch,

Everytime I post a link all I try to do is add more info to the topic. Not trying to make a point either way. Just saw the article and posted it in the thread so other people can see it.

You can believe whatever you want. It is not my intent to convince people either way.

Sure, this is an op-ed piece. There is a slant.

But was amazes me is how the majority of the right seems completely unable to ever admit that the Iraq situation is not good. That it has not gone as planned. And the Administration made improper assumptions and could have handled things much, much better. Bush is not infallable, just as he's not completely incompotent.

But it appears to me that whenever any cirticism of the Administration is reported the right NEVER believe's it has any base in fact. It's always a "liberal media bias" or some "slant." It's unbelievable.

Then compare them to America's numbers in the 1800s when the country was just getting going. The point is that 45-60% is well inline with many of the voting seasons that happened around the Civil War period and our country has certainly avoided major legitimacy issues at that time (when we were at a similar period of internal strife).

My frustration is how very little positive news is covered by the news. Everything over there is "violence and death" when you are still talking about only a couple incidents every few days. There's no mention of the swell of nationalism in the Iraqi people and how the number of volunteers for their army has increased significantly since the election (a fact many of you did not know, I would bet). There are a few different blogs run by current US soliders that discuss all the positive things occuring in Iraq from improved power, schools and road infrustructure to young Iraqi kids turning in the location of foreign fighters that are part of this imported terror network.

But, I haven't heard one thing about any of these stories by the national media and have to hunt and search to find them. I'm not saying everything is 100% rosy in Iraq, there's still a lot of issues with the insurgency and terrorism. But, it bothers me that the American people are getting about a 90-10 split on negative/positive news in Iraq and really not getting the big picture on what is going on over there. Then again, I think it says a lot about the people in the US to see the resolve to stay in Iraq at the level it is given the 90-10 split on negative news.

Wounded Guard and Reserve Soldiers Lose Medical Care

I heard this story on NPR this morning, but this link is the only one (so far) that I've seen on-line for what's a more-or-less breaking story.

Basically, the Government Accountability Office did a study to find out why wounded Guard and Reserve soldiers were losing their medical coverage. What it found, and concluded, was that the administrative system in place for those units has been overwhelmed by their involvement in the war, and has resulted in dropping injured soldiers from active status after they've been injured/wounded for a while.

The result, of course, is that they lose their pay, their medical benefits and their family's medical benefits. All for serving their country and getting wounded in action in Afghanistan or Iraq.


Now for the op-ed....


Of course, this is yet another example of exactly how little this Administration planned ahead when deciding to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Reserves are an emergency force and the Guard is a civil defense force. They're not toy soldiers to be used as cannon fodder. However, given the way this Administration has treated them, you could be excused for thinking so.

Intriguingly enough, I'm teaching about this very subject in a few hours. According to my information, in 1824 the turnout was only 26.9%. From 1828-1836 it jumped to the range you mention, 55.4-57.8%. But between 1840-1860 we saw turnouts raning from 69.6% to a high of 81.2% in the 1860 election.

Maybe they don't want a re-run of "They'll greet us with flowers" followed by 1000+ U.S. casualties again.

Honestly, what positive news do you want them to report?

"We're rebuilding schools!" - that the U.S. destroyed in the invasion

"We now have power!" - that they had before the invasion

"We kind of have gas now!" - that they had before the invasion

"We got rid of a brutal dictator!" - and have now elected a slate of candidates backed by a prominent Shiite cleric, whilst giving virtually no representation to the minority Sunnis. That'll end well.


Iraq has a major security issue, a (now) lack of good infrastructure, a fledgling political system that remains untested, an inability to yet exploit its natural resources, and a real problem in re-developing it's armed and police forces. No offense, but 90% of it is bad news. To say otherwise is to just simply hide yourself behind some rose-colored glasses.

You think 90% of the news on what's going on in Iraq are attacks by terrorists? That's a pretty amazing statement. But, I can't really fault you when you get your news from the New York Times. It would certainly seem that way given their coverage.

Iraq has a major security issue, but that's one issue out of around 100 that the US and Iraqi governments are dealing with. The other "10%" includes such trivial things as national elections, getting Iraq close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil (and beginning to create a national economy), improving their water and road system to INCREASE the service coverage in Iraq over what Saddam provided, vastly expanding the telecommunications capability of the country, setting up a non-government monitored media, building MORE hospitals and schools than existed prior to our entrance and setting up a representative governmental policy that involves all of the different groups. Most of these (if not all) involve very positive advancements in Iraq to a point many never felt were possible - definately not under Saddam.

But, yeah, none of this should take precendence over the one to two attacks every few days. That's where all our focus should be. All this other "fluff" is just lies by the Bush administration - right?

Well, considering Iraq started at around 50%, I would expect they will be easily beating our numbers in the early 1800s 5-10 years down the road. As to the turnout in 1850-1860, perhaps Iraq can also reach those marks in the years 2030 and beyond.

Arles, Bry

how can you compare voter turnouts in Iraq with historic US turnouts?

Wow, you totally didn't read what I wrote. Try again.

What would be a better comparison? It's not a perfect match but it gives a frame of reference for another country that has started its own democracy in the past 200-300 years under the garb of internal strife and fighting.

Plus I was responding to this statment:

Are you sure the denominator is the same in these percentages? There is a big difference if you are dividing by Voting Age Population, eligible voters, or registered voters. Turnout percentages can be quite high if you are going by registered voters. VAP is typically the standard these days, though media/government/politicians/think tanks can use different denominators depending on how they want to spin turnout. Often, if you want to say "turnout sucks", use VAP, if you want to say "turnout is great", use registered voters. Oftentimes, two different conclusions can be reached in analyzing the same election...

As for your 1800s numbers, it would be difficult to compare them regardless, since changes in voter eligibility will skew the trend a bit...

OK, you think 90% of what's going in Iraq is bad news? That's a pretty amazing statement.

Any better?

I get hardly any of my news from the New York Times, but feel free to make stupid assumptions. Speaking of which, you clearly only get your news from the Republicans' talking points memos, if this is any indication:


Each and every "point" you make is overblown and presented in a "best-case" manner. Such thinking is what got us involved in Iraq in the first place ("they'll greet us with flowers").

Until the security problem is solved, any forward progress is in serious jeopardy. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

By the way, feel free to continue to trivialize the continuing attacks. I don't expect any Bush Apologist to be concerned with the continuing escalation of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

Has any war ever "gone as planned"? You can find plenty of FUBARs in every military action we have ever participated in. We set ourselves up by being too successful in DSI and now are paying for it with second-guessing at every point when it isn't all so neat and simple. Guess what, war by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast and no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

I don't think it's a very good point of comparison. In the first century of US independence, voting eligibility varied widely by state. It was not until the 1840s that most white males had the right to vote. The trend you see is not really measuring interest in voting, it is really capturing the artifact of changes in voting eligibility rules. Also, unless NoMyths corrects me, I'm not sure the criteria for the denominator is the same in the figures he quotes--I find it difficult to believe that 1860 figure is really that high unless the criteria is registered voters. 1824 seems awfully low if we are judging by the same criteria.

Iraq is a different creature entirely, the trend we will eventually see will more or less capture interest in voting, since everyone presumably already has voting rights...

I agree. I never said there had been, nor would I ever exepect a military campaign to go off all neat and tidy.

War by it's very nature is an ugly, grotesque beast. And I am sure no battle plan has ever fully survived it's initial contact with the enemy.

That said, there are FUBARs and then there are FUBARs. For example, I am sure there were hunderds, if not, thousands of FUBAR type situations in WWII. That said, I have never heard anyone ever claim that, say, for example, the Vietnam War was a more successful military campaign than WWII. Or that Custer's tactical decisions at Little Big Horn were right up there with Henry V's at Agincourt. Or that the German invasion of Russia in WWII was as successful as its invasion of France. There are levels of fuck-ups. Some are minor, some are major, some are in between. But fuck-up are invetible. And some of these FUBARs can be blamed, in some part (not totally) on poor planning, strategy, or tactics.

At the moment Iraq is looking like a bit of a middling-to-major FUBAR situation. Maybe I am wrong about this. Maybe Iraq is exactly in the place those in command thought it would be. Maybe this is not FUBAR'd at all.

By all accounts, however, the US has more or less admitted it never really had a proper exist strategy or plan after the initial invasion. In fact, I recall listening to the congressional debates about this topic and many conservatives basically said "we'll think about that later." Well, it appears that was inadequate planning and now our troops and the Iraqis people are paying for that. Yes, war is ugly. It's bloody, it's blowing people heads off, it's messy, it's confusing, it's a horrible, horrible thing. And you can plan all you want, thinking you have all your bases covered, and then something goes wrong and it's blown to hell. No one denies that.

It just appears that in this situation, like Vietnam, like Little Big Horn, like the German invasion of Russia, that poor planning and poor strategy has made a bad situation worse. To what extent what's going on is a result of the planning, I have no idea.

Maybe this is a situation where the planning was as good as it could be, but shit just went down wrong. Maybe it is. But, from what I read, that is not the case. No one can plan for all contigencies, especially in war, but from what I have been able to read about this campaign, poor planning and strategy has created a number of these problems.

Hopefully the ship will right itself and all will be well.

Dola.

Leo, you're a military guy. Based on what you've read and such, do you think this war was well planned? That there was a solid post-occupation strategy? I am just curious. at some level, even the best laid plans and tactics, will go to shit. As mentioned, war is a messy, confusing, ugly, and unpredictable endeavor. That said, a strong plan/tactic/strategy, while never being able to remove these "X-Factors", can hope to limit them.

I am sad to see you say that. How am I being dishonest?

But Fiero gets a free pass. You can be dishonest as long as your a liberal?

All I am asking for is fair and balanced reporting in the news and television. Most people trust what they say or write. Is that not fair of me to ask for that?

Do me a favor please, can you go to the NY Times Editorial Section and bring up the rebuttal to your first link. Then you are provided more than just half the story. I mean, since you are just trying to be fair.

I guess there's another flere-imsaho that routinely cites Maureen Dowd. Perhaps I should have said NPR as well to be fair.

What makes you think all that I posted is "overblown"? Let's go through each item:

1. National elections did occur with mostly positive results.
2. Iraq is very close to a point where they are at full capacity in producing oil and actually having their country benefit from its proceeds (not just Saddam).
3. There is now more road coverage than under Saddam and the water systems are currently more sanitary than under Saddam.
4. There is much higher quality telecommunications network in places in Iraq ranging from Baghdad to Fallujah.
5. There are more public access schools and hospitals in Iraq now than there were under Saddam.
6. The Iraqi government is on the path with a blueprint for their constitution and the beginnings of a representative assembly and leadership.

These are all facts that you can look up regarding Iraq right now. Perhaps you can point out which of these facts are "overblown".

I don't think asking for equal time in the press on the above points is trivializing the attacks that occur. It's simply offering a broader picture on the reality of the US efforts in Iraq.

are you aware of any exit strategy that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement?

It's a beautifully fabricated catch-22 by the left. The left knows very well that if the US or US Military says, "We will have all terrorists mopped up by February 25, the Iraqi Govt will be stable on March 1st, and the US will leave on March 15th" then we lose no matter what.

Fighting a war is a bit more serious than say, making a video game. But when people scream, "When is the video game gonna be done?!?!?!?"

What should the developer say that is safest? That's right, "It will be done when it's done."

Same thing goes with toppling corrupt governments that threaten the US and our interests.

Period.

Fritz & Klinglerware: I wasn't making any comparison or statement about comparisons. Just providing numbers in response to Arles statement...his percentages seemed a bit low, and so I wanted to make sure the accurate data was out there.

I agree with each of you that it is hard to tie in data because of the different laws and the idea of registration. The point I was trying to make was that we had lower (compared to other elections at the timeframe) turnout during parts of the Civil War because of many logistical and safety issues - much like the situation in Iraq. Yet, we didn't view the president during that period as any less viable. So, I would think that if turnout ends up ranging in the 45-60% scope that has been asserted, it's enough to grant legitimacy to the new Iraqi government. Which, in essence, is all this entire discussion has been about.

I cited her once. Does "cited once" equal "routinely cites" in your world? At least attempt to be correct, OK? Oh wait, you're a Bush Apologist, trading in misinformation is what you do. My bad.


Sorry? You're using Iraq's National elections as an example of positive news that didn't get enough press in the States? This was the same election that was plastered across broadcasts for days and still commands significant airtime in many sectors? Um, OK.


Good, back to status quo. Only took 2 years. We're supposed to be jumping for joy about this? After all, in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz said the following: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.... ...oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Given this, and the $18 billion we've spent on reconstruction so far, it seems to me that news of Iraq's oil industry starting to recover is more a source for cautious optimism, than raucous celebration.

But you wouldn't be a Bush Apologist if you thought that way.


Both were of reasonable quality under Saddam. Good news, but hardly earth-shaking. Let's not forget that most of the repairs that had to be undertaken were due to damage done by coalition troops during the invasion. How many children and elderly died from poor sanitation in this aftermath?

I guess that's OK because they're "collateral damage".


A metric achieved simply by switching private access schools & hospitals to public access. Sure, it's good, but I'd hope the U.S. would believe in more public access to these services than a dictator.


Says you. Unless the ruling Shiites decide that a theocracy led by the example of Sistani is the way to go. Unless the Kurds decide to use their new power-broking position as a way to get an independent Kurdistan. Unless everyone gangs up on the Sunnis. Again, a source for cautious optimism, not wild celebration.

Hey, sorry you got yourself into your own catch-22. Maybe your President shouldn't have been so quick to do this:




That's funny, because that's not the impression I get from what this Administration has to say about it.

Would a better comparison be India's first election after British rule? I believe that election was more-or-less universal suffrage, with some concern about disruption from various parties. I have no data on the turnout, though.

That whole post-WWII Europe and Japan thing seemed to work pretty well. Dontcha ya think?

I do, for an after the fact set of policies.

I don't know that this helps your point though.

What point? You were the one trying to make a point with this.

My point is simple:

What is going on in Iraq right now appears to be, to some extent, a result of poor military and planning and strategy and poor (or no) post-war (remember, according to the Bush Administration, the war (major combat operations) has been over since May 2003) policies/exit strategy. End of.

WWII appears to be the opposite. A successful campaign thanks to strong (or perhaps lucky) military tactics and strategy and strong post-war policies/exist strategy.

This did work well but the circumstances were radically different. Our allies in the war(England, France, etc) were also bankrupt and ruined by war, and US manufacturing was stronger than ever, so under the Marshall Plan financial aid that was given to those companies was spent through specific US companies that got great contracts to rebuild those countries.

The situation now is almost completely reversed--the US has no manufacturing, relies almost completely on foreign investors who buy into the confidence trick that the US is central to world security, thus the dollar is falling and continues to fall. Yes it's true that some of the money will come back to certain US oil comapnies who get good deals, but we live in age of multinational corporations so that money will not likely recirculate in the US to any beneficial degree.

I agree completely. The circumstnaces are entirely different. Different worlds.

I was simply giving an example of, what appears to me at least, of an "exit strategy" that the US has had prior to any other major military involvement.

Mayhap it's too early to judge yet if there is a proper plan. Mayhap the wheels are still in motion and in 2, 5, or 10 years down the line it will all fall into place and we'll be praising the "Rove Plan" or something.