"What...me worry?" - Donald Rumsfeld

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html>Warnings ignored, says retired Marine</a></h1></center>

By Rick Rogers

<blockquote>April 16, 2004

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.

"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"</blockquote>

The utter lack of post war planning is evident to all but the mentally deficient. The Administration preffered the ideologically driven advice of the chickenhawk neo-cons over the reccomendations of seasoned field commanders. Such incompetence should be severely punished.

 

[DKSuddeth]

This could be the one that sticks, however, it seems to have been briefly hit and rolled over by the media. Don't expect this to make the papers again.

 

[preemptingyou03]

History is written by the ideological few. And history is kind to those who write it.

The "post-war planning" is fine. Fine. We suspected the Iraqi military would give up. Instead, like cowards, they ran away. So we had to build up the entire Iraqi police force and military again. It's hard tough work. We're facing a new kind of war in Afghanistan and Iraq... terrorist warfare. We're tougher than them. We'll stomach it.

This is exactly the kind of splash we needed to make post-9/11. We've lost 700 troops in Iraq and 150 in Afghanistan. Those deaths won't be for nothing.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
History is written by the ideological few. And history is kind to those who write it.

The "post-war planning" is fine. Fine. We suspected the Iraqi military would give up. Instead, like cowards, they ran away. So we had to build up the entire Iraqi police force and military again. It's hard tough work. We're facing a new kind of war in Afghanistan and Iraq... terrorist warfare. We're tougher than them. We'll stomach it.

This is exactly the kind of splash we needed to make post-9/11. We've lost 700 troops in Iraq and 150 in Afghanistan. Those deaths won't be for nothing.

Well, if you consider what you see as "fine" you really need to have the prescription for you eyeglasses, or your anti-psychotics, checked.

 

[cptpwichita]

We are taking the war to the terrorists and eliminating those governments that aide and abed terrorists.a clear message is being sent worldwide that if you do support international terrorism you will lose your position of power,you will be hunted down,you will be tried and convicted and you will be punished for your crimes.we can fight this war on foreign soil or u.s. soil but this war is going to be fought (terrorists have no intention of stopping their violent ways).terrorists are siphoning into iraq and the war is being fought there instead of here.we cannot afford to sit back and be reactive we must become pro-active in locating and destroying terrorists and those who support them.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
We are taking the war to the terrorists and eliminating those governments that aide and abed terrorists.a clear message is being sent worldwide that if you do support international terrorism you will lose your position of power,you will be hunted down,you will be tried and convicted and you will be punished for your crimes.we can fight this war on foreign soil or u.s. soil but this war is going to be fought (terrorists have no intention of stopping their violent ways).terrorists are siphoning into iraq and the war is being fought there instead of here.we cannot afford to sit back and be reactive we must become pro-active in locating and destroying terrorists and those who support them.

There was, and is, no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The "War on Terrorism" has been badly mismanaged as a result of Dubbyuh's chubby for Saddam.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
There was, and is, no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Can you point out to me where he stated this?

There WAS a link between Saddam an various terrorist organizations and not to mention his paying off the suicide bombers $25k apiece. Then add in the resolutions. He needed to be removed. He was.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Can you point out to me where he stated this?

There WAS a link between Saddam an various terrorist organizations and not to mention his paying off the suicide bombers $25k apiece. Then add in the resolutions. He needed to be removed. He was.

LA Times, September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.

 

[acludem]

This won't make the papers because the media is afraid of the Bush administration. There was NO link between Sadaam and Al Qaida. Al Qaida had nothing to do with the suicide bombers is Israel. Those are totally separate terrorists. What we in this country either don't understand or haven't been told is that there are literally hundreds and even thousands of terror groups in the middle east and they don't all like each other. For example, Hizbollah and Hamas hate each other, though they agree on Israel. Why do they hate each other? Simple, they practice different forms of Islam, Hizbollah is Shi'ite and Hamas is Sunni.

Rumsfeld, Bush & Co. had NO plan, have had no plan, and I don't see any plans coming out in the near future.

As for the quote from Bush, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth in order to try and cover both sides of his ass.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
LA Times, September 18, 2003

President Bush said Wednesday that there was no proof tying Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, amid mounting criticism that senior administration officials have helped lead Americans to believe that Iraq was behind the plot.

I guess comprehension isn't one of your strongest points?

Bully made a point of pointing that out to preempting, who never stated that to begin with. I was asking him to point out where he stated that - because otherwise there wouldn't have been a reason to inject Al Qaeda into the discussion when it wasn't there previously.

Funny how some will use Bush's statement to prove no link, but then cry all the time that Bush did state there was a connection. Make up your mind guys!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
This won't make the papers because the media is afraid of the Bush administration. There was NO link between Sadaam and Al Qaida. Al Qaida had nothing to do with the suicide bombers is Israel. Those are totally separate terrorists. What we in this country either don't understand or haven't been told is that there are literally hundreds and even thousands of terror groups in the middle east and they don't all like each other. For example, Hizbollah and Hamas hate each other, though they agree on Israel. Why do they hate each other? Simple, they practice different forms of Islam, Hizbollah is Shi'ite and Hamas is Sunni.

Rumsfeld, Bush & Co. had NO plan, have had no plan, and I don't see any plans coming out in the near future.

As for the quote from Bush, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth in order to try and cover both sides of his ass.

acludem

Another one who can't comprehend.

How very sad. I am embarrassed for you.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<center><h1><a href=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040416-9999-7m16zinni.html>Warnings ignored, says retired Marine</a></h1></center>

By Rick Rogers

<blockquote>April 16, 2004

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq...

The utter lack of post war planning is evident to all but the mentally deficient. The Administration preffered the ideologically driven advice of the chickenhawk neo-cons over the reccomendations of seasoned field commanders. Such incompetence should be severely punished.

It is worth remembering General Zinni's remarks from nearly two years ago on the subject of invading Iraq.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.) was commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, which commands U.S. forces in much of the Middle East and Central Asia, during 1997-2000. He was the first to have served previously as deputy commander in chief of the command. He had also been deputy commanding general of the combined task force during Operation Provide Comfort immediately after the Gulf War, and commander of the combined task force for Operation United Shield.

After a speech about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to the Economic Club of Florida on August 23, 2002, he made the following comments in response to a question about a war against Iraq.

Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and are really hell bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history.

[Also the way it works on this blog it seems]

But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it, if you need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That's the first issue in my mind.

The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority.

Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority.

The transcript is widely available on the web. I got it from http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/generalsview.cfm

I would pay particular attention to General Zinni pointing out that the war on terrorism should be a higher priority than the war on Iraq.

 

[preemptingyou03]

You guys are blind.

There are radical Wahabi terrorists. There are radical Sunni terrorists. There are radical Shi'ite terrorists. There are Wahabi, Sunni, and Shi'ite dictators. There are secular and religious radical dictators.

They may insult each other from time to time, or even disagree with each other, but like mafia families, they cooperate.

Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Period. First of all, his regime itself was a terrorist regime. When you use chemical weapons on your neighbors and your own people and when you kill 750,000 of your own people, you're a terrorist.

Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abu Nidal, the leader of the ANO, a man that killed over 900 people in 90 terrorist attacks in 30 countries. He was one of the world's most wanted terrorists. He was killed.

Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abu Abbas, the leader of the PLF, a man that killed hundreds. He was one of the world's most wanted terrorists. He was captured.

The only mastermind of the 1993 WTC plot that remains at large, Abdul Yassin, an al-Qaeda operative, was given shelter in Iraq from 1993 until the war in 2003. He is still at large in Iraq.

One of the world's most wanted terrorists, and one of al-Qaeda's senior leaders, perhaps the next bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was given shelter, aid, funding, sponsorship, and comfort in Iraq before the war. He is at large within Iraq.

Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Baath officials in Baghdad in 1992.

Saddam Hussein funded Hezbollah, the world's second largest terrorist group.

Saddam funded Hamas, the world's third largest terrorist group.

Saddam funded Islamic Jihad, the world's fourth largest terrorist group.

Saddam gave sponsorship to the MEK and PKK terrorist groups, groups that trained near the Syrian border with al-Qaeda operatives in plane hijacking camps with Ansar al-Islam, another terrorist group that Saddam supported. Ansar al-Islam is known as the "Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda."

Fighting al-Qaeda is fighting a non-geographical force. You claim Iraq's a diversion from the War on Terror... well, if that's true, what is the War on Terror? Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone? There are a few rogue states that SUPPORT TERRORISM. We must confront them all.

Eight out of al-Qaeda's top ten are dead or behind bars. I guess we're doing a bad job fighting al-Qaeda though, according to you...

 

[jimnyc]

Excellent, preempting.

 

[acludem]

I'm in the process of writing a research paper on the Iranian Revolution which will include Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad and other groups. If you think these people all cooperate, I have one word for you: Lebanon. These groups have been fighting over whether or not Lebanon will be Shiite or Sunni for years and years. Remember the bombings in Beirut? These were attacks back and forth between terrorist groups.

If they are to be compared in anyway to mafia families it is the fact that all vie for supremacy, will kill each other at the drop of a hat, and occassionally collaborate, end up fighting with each other, usually leading to the deaths of many members.

acludem

 

[Annie]

This looked like the most likely thread to post this on. Sorry, but time is short and I thought you all might like this:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/005862.html

Arab Way of War
Apropos last night’s post on the different ways the West and the Rest view violence, a reader brought to my attention an article in Proceedings by an Australian Air Force Captain, “The New Arab Way of War.” There’s little new here for students of conflict but it’s an excellent synthesis.

In 1942, the great democracies started to win and kept winning, thus determining the modern Western technique of war. The horrors of two world wars motivated the strengthening of international laws to prevent attacks on noncombatants and limit war’s impact on civilians. Technology was developed that allowed highly accurate attacks that could limit destruction to military targets and minimize the number of people killed. Waging war became the business of elaborate machines operated by highly trained, long-service professionals. Western militaries became seemingly invincible on the battlefield and a tool of humanitarian assistance, not of empire. The last Western war of the 20th century was not of conquest, but waged to defend the human rights of the Muslims of Kosovo.
Middle Eastern societies have taken stock of the Western challenge and devised an innovative, strongly asymmetrical response. Middle Eastern societies demonstrably cannot win symmetrical conflict involving Western militaries. Their “better way” inherently appears barbarous, murderous, and cruel as it is diametrically opposed to the Western approach to armed conflict.


This is the essence of asymmetrical warfare, really. Decades of military defeats against superior Western forces, especially the 1991 Gulf War, proved that Arab forces were so vastly overmatched that they had literally zero chance of victory in a head-on fight with a modern military. Terrorism and other asymmetrical techniques were the tactically logical alternative.

A major innovation of the Arab way of war is the deliberate targeting of civilians. The assassins’ rhetoric makes no distinction between civilian and military targets. Attacking civilians guarantees global attention as the media, reflecting global values, has a horror of the infliction of cruelty on noncombatants. Attacking civilians is perceived by the assassins as the most direct route to influence global opinion and to affect the national will of the nations struck. Attacks usually are conducted with considerable skill, timing, expertise, and precision but are designed to kill absolutely indiscriminately. Given this, the strategic aim of attacks is hard to discern. Violence customarily is conceived as a means to an end, but the essence in this style of war seems to be inflicting terror. Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik notes: “Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose on him.” [footnotes omitted]
This last point is especially noteworthy. As has been endlessly noted here and elsewhere, al Qaeda’s stated war aims are vast and unrealistic. Basically, the West has to adopt Islam, revert to a 7th Century lifestyle, and allow the Jews to be slaughtered. Those things aren’t going to happen. So, the violence perpetrated by al Qaeda and others is essentially violence out of frustration rather than violence intended to achieve realistic political objectives.

James Joyner | Blogroll OTB | Technorati | Send TrackBack | Trackbacks (1)

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
You guys are blind.

There are radical Wahabi terrorists. There are radical Sunni terrorists. There are radical Shi'ite terrorists. There are Wahabi, Sunni, and Shi'ite dictators. There are secular and religious radical dictators.

They may insult each other from time to time, or even disagree with each other, but like mafia families, they cooperate.

Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. Period. First of all, his regime itself was a terrorist regime. When you use chemical weapons on your neighbors and your own people and when you kill 750,000 of your own people, you're a terrorist.

Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abu Nidal, the leader of the ANO, a man that killed over 900 people in 90 terrorist attacks in 30 countries. He was one of the world's most wanted terrorists. He was killed.

Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abu Abbas, the leader of the PLF, a man that killed hundreds. He was one of the world's most wanted terrorists. He was captured.

The only mastermind of the 1993 WTC plot that remains at large, Abdul Yassin, an al-Qaeda operative, was given shelter in Iraq from 1993 until the war in 2003. He is still at large in Iraq.

One of the world's most wanted terrorists, and one of al-Qaeda's senior leaders, perhaps the next bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was given shelter, aid, funding, sponsorship, and comfort in Iraq before the war. He is at large within Iraq.

Ayman al-Zawahiri met with Baath officials in Baghdad in 1992.

Saddam Hussein funded Hezbollah, the world's second largest terrorist group.

Saddam funded Hamas, the world's third largest terrorist group.

Saddam funded Islamic Jihad, the world's fourth largest terrorist group.

Saddam gave sponsorship to the MEK and PKK terrorist groups, groups that trained near the Syrian border with al-Qaeda operatives in plane hijacking camps with Ansar al-Islam, another terrorist group that Saddam supported. Ansar al-Islam is known as the "Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda."

Fighting al-Qaeda is fighting a non-geographical force. You claim Iraq's a diversion from the War on Terror... well, if that's true, what is the War on Terror? Afghanistan and Afghanistan alone? There are a few rogue states that SUPPORT TERRORISM. We must confront them all.

Eight out of al-Qaeda's top ten are dead or behind bars. I guess we're doing a bad job fighting al-Qaeda though, according to you...

Uh huh...The Taliban and Al Qaeda are making a resurgence in southern Afghanistan. Al Qaeda continues to strike with impunity as witnessed by the train bombings in Spain. The "War on Terror" goes on because as you cut off one head, two more spring up in its place. Military might in the form of a cold war military will not defeat this enemy. Economic development, education, healthcare, infrastructure, humint, and special ops are what is needed. Not trying to rebuild on the cheap then abandon Iraqis to their fate at the earliest opportunity, can't have this pesky mess interfering with the presidential election now...Can we?

 

[preemptingyou03]

ACLU,

The Iranian regime and the Taliban were on the verge of war pre-9/11 over how the Taliban treated some Iranian tourists, I believe. That changed post-9/11. Pakistan supported the Taliban pre-9/11. That changed post-9/11.

Many Muslims hate other Muslims. Secular dictators may in fact hate radical religious terrorists. But they will cooperate and they have.

Bully,

By bringing up the Taliban and Afghanistan, I am guessing you can now agree with me that my facts are true, and Saddam Hussein did have ties to terrorism, did have ties to al-Qaeda (although murky, I'll admit) and Iraq was part of the War on Terror?

As for the Taliban... look. We're in a war. Not a picnic. We're not baking cookies over there. The terrorists are fighting back. They've lost their ground, their camps, their leaders, their funds, their sponsorship, their country, their safe haven. Osama's leadership is completely dismantled with the exception of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Saif al-Adel.

I agree with you that the War on Terror is a war of ideas and it will be fought with other things besides military operations. Law enforcement, police action, intelligence sharing, and stuff of that sort.

And as for the war of ideas... these people hate us no matter what we do. You cannot win the hearts and minds of the heartless and mindless. We have to change future generations. By fighting terrorism, we may create more terrorism... for the time being. But freedom will win, as it always has, and as it always will.

There is something odd about doubting American values.