Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 10/04/2004 View Sun 10/03/2004 View Sat 10/02/2004 View Fri 10/01/2004 View Thu 09/30/2004 View Wed 09/29/2004 View Tue 09/28/2004
1
2004-10-04 Terror Networks
New tome: War vs. Saddam hit al-Qaeda hard
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Anonymous5089 2004-10-04 10:18:58 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [338 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Interesting, but to what extent has the Magic Kingdom actually cracked down? Just enough to keep the lid on a boiling pot, it seems to me. The Saudis need to do much more.
Posted by Spot  2004-10-04 2:58:37 PM||   2004-10-04 2:58:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 "He criticizes the administration for failing to build up U.S. military strength and commit enough forces to Iraq."

Ok boys, its time to put up or shut up. Name the Operational Theater Commander who has asked for more troops and has been turned down?
Posted by Don 2004-10-04 4:01:26 PM||   2004-10-04 4:01:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 He forgot to mention a few other master strokes. First of all, Iraq is smack dab in the middle of things. Not only Syria and Iran, but also Central Asia and Northern Africa. And, you'll note, that the establishment of a REGIONAL COMMAND there clearly denotes that this fact was not lost on us. This points the US bayonet at a LOT of hard cases, *and* protects the world's energy supply, *and* fractures the paradigm of the contentious Middle East. With Iraq as a safe harbor, eastern Asia is also opened up US influence. In other words, the US can now project force like never before. With Europe cooled, Iraq is the very best place to be.
Posted by Anonymoose 2004-10-04 4:07:02 PM||   2004-10-04 4:07:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I would dispute the lack of other reasons besides pressuring Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq; however, what really bugs me is that the American public in general may never hear about this.

Slashdot ran a link to an extensive NY Times story about administration disputes about Iraqi WMD with the title "White House Lied About Iraqi Centrifuges." (Never mind that in the meantime, as a result of the Iraqi invasion, we've found a clandestine network that was building centrifuges and shipping them around...)

Putting pressure on the Saudis and others by invading Iraq only works when we don't have a candidate who's telling everyone he'll take the pressure off of them if he's elected.
Posted by Phil Fraering 2004-10-04 5:09:32 PM|| [http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]  2004-10-04 5:09:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 typical Statfor. Having been proved wrong about the benefits of going into Iraq - they now grudgingly acknowledge that efforts in Iraq have crippled Al Qaeda but ....ya see....only cause the stupid Bush just got lucky as he bumbled along.

These guys should stop trying so hard to look down their nose - it's hindering their vision.
Posted by 2b 2004-10-04 5:16:55 PM||   2004-10-04 5:16:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Name the Operational Theater Commander who has asked for more troops and has been turned down?

Wesley Clark?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-10-04 5:48:40 PM||   2004-10-04 5:48:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "These guys should stop trying so hard to look down their nose - it's hindering their vision."

Very true; God bless 'em, though, for at least trying to see-- that's more than a lot of people are willing to do.

Shortly before we invaded Iraq I started keeping a list of what I thought we were probably trying to achieve-- of all the possible ways invading Iraq might work to our advantage in the larger war, as well as all the possible side benefits. I had no trouble at all listing dozens of things, including what Anonymoose mentioned above.

I've no idea why people cling to the notion that we went into Iraq "only" because of WMD, or for oil, or to stop the genocide. Maybe they simply aren't willing to trust Bush, and this inclination to distrust is being deliberately exploited, and amplified, by the Democrats for political gain.
Posted by Dave D. 2004-10-04 5:52:25 PM||   2004-10-04 5:52:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I've always argued that one of the unstated key reasons for going into Iraq was to scare the daylights out of Muslim governments that have adopted anti-American terrorism as a tool of state policy. Not by sponsoring it wholeheartedly and overtly, but by helping out a little here and a little there. No one country took on the whole burden, but every country did its bit. By having a piece of al Qaeda here and a piece there, they tried to avoid potential American retaliation. Iraq bolstered American credibility by showing Muslim states that the US might attack them even without the existence of irrefutable evidence. Many are now rushing to divest themselves of anything that can remotely be linked to a future terror attack on US soil. Without this tolerance of al Qaeda operatives among Muslim countries, the chances for another 9/11-style attack on the US are pretty slim.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-10-04 7:02:57 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2004-10-04 7:02:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I have always thought that going into Iraq was a right thing to do. There were lots of good reasons to do so. Iraq is a (there were others) linch-pin to mid-East. Something had to be done about the festering sore that existed there for all too long. I hope Zhang Fei's analysis is correct about the chances being slim for no more 9/11s here. Libia came around. The Saudi's seem to be slowly coming around. However, they have been playing both sides of the fence for a long time. I am not convinced they are not still playing this game. I never ever ever want to see another 9/11 on this soil.
Posted by John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 7:44:42 PM||   2004-10-04 7:44:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Me either. Put me down 100 percent against another 9.11
Posted by Singh Ho 2004-10-04 7:57:09 PM||   2004-10-04 7:57:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Wait! Make that 120 percent against another 9.11
Posted by Singh Ho 2004-10-04 7:57:43 PM||   2004-10-04 7:57:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I have always supported going into Iraq just because. Just because is a good enough reason for me.
Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom  2004-10-04 7:59:29 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com]  2004-10-04 7:59:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Just because it is easy to pull the wool over a sock puppet? Darn!
Posted by john  2004-10-04 9:34:58 PM||   2004-10-04 9:34:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mrs. Davis - Msr. Clark was a color commentator on CNN and NOT the Operational Theater Commander of forces in the Iraq or Afghan campaign. Its the commander on 'the ground' who determines the needs of the operation. The Nichols-Goldwater Act says who's in charge and a retired general without access to the J-3 and J-2 materials is not in the know. The N-G Act was put in place specifically to end the amount of micro-management of military operations from people sitting thousands of miles away from the fight in the Beltway. Again I ask, what Operational Theater Commander in Iraq has requested additional troops and has been denied?
Posted by Don 2004-10-05 9:27:47 AM||   2004-10-05 9:27:47 AM|| Front Page Top

00:07 Fred
00:30 Fred the Zionist
00:17 Fred
00:17 Fred
00:11 Fred
00:11 Fred
00:09 Fred
00:09 Fred
00:07 Fred
00:30 Fred the Zionist
14:57 Frank G
14:39 Snolulet Omeating8644
03:37 Daniel Dravot
23:26 Asedwich
22:03 ed
22:01 tu3031
18:20 lex
09:27 Don
09:06 Poison Reverse
03:01 Throons Omoons7966
02:17 Super Hose
02:15 Super Hose
02:07 Super Hose
02:05 Super Hose

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.235.22.104

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com