Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
7:45 PM | 
Posted by
kender
This is a special post for all those out there that keep screaming about the WMDs that weren't found in Iraq and we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
These people don't understand STRATEGY. If you can read this story and still tell me that you don't understand, once and for all, the reasons behind the war then do us all a favor and actually get that lobotomy. After all you are simply some paper work and a short operation from being LEGALLY stupid, as opposed to CONSIDERED stupid.
The Australian
Edition 1 - All-round CountryFRI 26 NOV 2004, Page 013
WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion
By Frank Devine
WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.
For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.
Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately ``a cover for a much deeper game''. The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.
This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) -- the core of al-Qa'ida.
When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.
The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for ``bailing the Americans out'', financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida (``the Base'' in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves -- attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad -- were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.
This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the ``Islamic street'' to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that ``war was now optional'', that no power existed that could force it into war.
The passive US response to its early pinprick attacks emboldened and frustrated al-Qa'ida. The jihadists, Friedman writes, ``needed to strike a blow that would be devastating, [breaching] the threshold between what was tolerable and intolerable for the US''. Their initiative was the September11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, which shocked and disoriented the Americans. Their first reaction was to speculate almost in panic about a September 11 with nuclear weapons.
This began an obsession with WMDs. US actions were practical and reasonably prompt, however. The US persuaded Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to make inventory of their nuclear weapons and strengthen security on them.
Rather astonishingly, as Friedman reports it, the US pressured Pakistan -- the Muslim country most advanced in nuclear weaponry and the one in closest contact with Islamic fundamentalism -- into permitting US soldiers dressed as civilians to place a guard on its nuclear stockpile. To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.
The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.
By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as ``a Saudi problem''. Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia -- Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.
``From a purely military view,'' Friedman adds, ``Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran.''
So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.
The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ``Not a single regime has fallen to
al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The
war goes on.''
Linked at Stop the ACLU and Hard Astarboard
These people don't understand STRATEGY. If you can read this story and still tell me that you don't understand, once and for all, the reasons behind the war then do us all a favor and actually get that lobotomy. After all you are simply some paper work and a short operation from being LEGALLY stupid, as opposed to CONSIDERED stupid.
The Australian
Edition 1 - All-round CountryFRI 26 NOV 2004, Page 013
WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion
By Frank Devine
WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.
For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.
Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately ``a cover for a much deeper game''. The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.
This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) -- the core of al-Qa'ida.
When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.
The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for ``bailing the Americans out'', financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida (``the Base'' in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves -- attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad -- were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.
This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the ``Islamic street'' to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that ``war was now optional'', that no power existed that could force it into war.
The passive US response to its early pinprick attacks emboldened and frustrated al-Qa'ida. The jihadists, Friedman writes, ``needed to strike a blow that would be devastating, [breaching] the threshold between what was tolerable and intolerable for the US''. Their initiative was the September11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, which shocked and disoriented the Americans. Their first reaction was to speculate almost in panic about a September 11 with nuclear weapons.
This began an obsession with WMDs. US actions were practical and reasonably prompt, however. The US persuaded Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to make inventory of their nuclear weapons and strengthen security on them.
Rather astonishingly, as Friedman reports it, the US pressured Pakistan -- the Muslim country most advanced in nuclear weaponry and the one in closest contact with Islamic fundamentalism -- into permitting US soldiers dressed as civilians to place a guard on its nuclear stockpile. To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.
The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.
By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as ``a Saudi problem''. Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia -- Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.
``From a purely military view,'' Friedman adds, ``Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran.''
So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.
The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ``Not a single regime has fallen to
al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The
war goes on.''
Linked at Stop the ACLU and Hard Astarboard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
so you think g. bush is intelligent?
Kender, this article is a complete bunch of hooey. I mean, really, I can't believe you take this seriously. Bush went to war on Iraq in order to intimidate Saudi Arabia? I'm laughing as I write this. Let me put it this way: If Bush's plan was to reduce terrorism by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, then his plan has failed utterly. Iraq has become the perfect inspiration for terrorists around the world. It wil probably become a fundamentalist regime allied with Iran. Afghanistan is slipping away. Our military is debilitated. Osama Bin Laden is alive, Al Qaeda is still out there, they have been dispersed and are therefore harder to fight. Their numbers have grown. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has changed little, notwithstanding any tiny "moderations" the article mentions. Saudi Arabia is still a brutual Wahabbist dictatorship with close ties to the Bush family. Pakistan is still a dictatorship perpetually on the verge of becoming an extremist Islamist state with nuclear weapons.
I was tempted to check and see if the article was from a parody site, but I won't bother. The fact is that Bush lied us into an immoral war, and then conducted that war in the most incompetent manner possible. He has encouraged terrorism, and meanwhile he has failed to protect the homeland. He has shafted veterans and soldiers, he has failed to protect ports and chemical plants and nuclear facilties. When I read something like this I really wonder if conservatives are writing from another planet.
Magnet? I don't know about Bush, but I know we have some very crafty strategists.
Balgar? This is from a paper in austrailia, and it has been archived (I had to buy it) but as it mentions in the article it is from George Friedmans book "Americas Secret War".
If you can't see the connection between the strategy being used, especially now that the FV seems to be an epidemic in the ME then I probably don't have the patience to explain it to you.
When I read something like this I really wonder if conservatives are writing from another planet.Yep, we are. It's called Earth. From what planet are you writing?
Balgar, as a veteran myself and friend of MANY active duty military, I ASSURE YOU we are not being "shafted" by the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, most military and veterans LOVE Bush as the Commander In Chief, despite the fact there's a war going on--or maybe even because of it, since it's a war worth fighting.
To call this an immoral war speaks volumes. Are you AGAINST freedom and democracy? And Bush, for the millionth time, did NOT "lie" or mislead. He, along with the rest of the world, had the same kind of intel that there were WMDs, and there's no way to honestly deny that. Would you prefer the rapist/thieving/corrupt UN handle it? They "tried" (I use the term sarcastically, mind you) for twelve long, ineffectual years--while Democrats shrieked about Saddam still being in place "because of Bush '41", of course.
These political arguments are not only completely irrational and illogical, they're so TRANSPARENTLY political it's laughable. You know damn good and well that NO MATTER WHAT Bush or Republicans do, you will find a way to criticize it. If he gave a speech saying "sorry folks, I lied because I want all that oil for the Bushes and Cheneys", you STILL wouldn't be happy. If bin Laden were captured, you'd complain that he wasn't killed (and vice versa). If there were no Iraq war, you'd end up griping about Afghanistan. Face it, we all know the game you're playing.
Is it SO DIFFICULT to imagine that an American President might actually have good intentions? Is it SO DIFFICULT to imagine that the military has good intentions? Is it so DIFFICULT to see what is going on around the Muslim world, where the oppressed are finally getting the courage to resist their oppressors?
You certainly are negative, assuming the worst (i.e. "probably become a fundamentalist regime allied with Iran", etc. etc. etc.). Can you find NOTHING good that's come out of all this?
I pity your melancholy outlook. Surely the world isn't THAT bad. Maybe you need Prozac or something.
Why don't you also read some Iraqi blogs other than that nutcase from Baghdad Burning or the usual Kos/Atrios/DU quaaludes?
Try Free Iraqi, Iraq the Model, the Mesopotamian, etc. etc. etc. You should be quite enlightened in seeing that while they have their share of problems, they know it's worth all of it.
Sorry lefties, you've lost this battle of ideas. The world is changing for the better and you're being left behind.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.
There is no strategy being used. You're letting these people dupe you, again. People like Cheney and Wolfowitz have been pushing for a second Iraq war since the Clinton administration. Bush started planning for Iraq as soon as he got into office. It's got nothing to do with terrorism. It's got nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. It has only to do with improving Bush's approval ratings and the insane neocon project to build an American empire. It has done serious harm to the safety of Americans at home and abroad. Tens of thousands of people are dead. It's a tragedy, but the bigger tragedy is that so many Americans are unwilling to see it for what it is.
I'm sorry some veterans and active duty soldiers refuse to see the truth of this. There are many who do see the truth, of course. The fact is that no American soldier had to die in support of Bush's personal agenda. There were many ways we could have dealt with Iraq, many ways we could have spent the resources we have wasted there. We had many choices, but Bush only wanted war. It's sad.
I like to read websites that tell the truth, not right-wing propaganda sites and CIA fronts. The left knew what was happening before the war started. I knew from the beginning that there were no WMDs. It was the right-wing that let itself be suckered.
I don't have time to argue about this all day. But the fact is that conservatives have failed. They have failed to insist on honest leadership, and they have failed to demand a just foreign policy. They have failed America. Once again the left will have to fix what you have broken.
You can rant, and call me names, and make up stories, but it won't change the facts. Bush is a failure, he is destroying to country, he is putting Americans at risk and letting Americans die -- and you love it. You love war. You love the killing. You love the torturing. You can try to wrap that up in some fantasy about democracy or freedom, but we know. We know you.
Only the left can save you now.
The left SAVE US?
You slay me dude.
The left is a bunch of socialists that will destroy this country.
Daddy Bush should have gone in and finished the job the first time.
The fact is terrorists are attacking us, and have called upon all muslims to do so, and consider those muslims that don't as the same as us. These terrorists are a serious threat right now, whereas the lefts fear of PNAC, while possibly grounded in reality, is also way down the checklist of problems to deal with.
Do you really think that American citizens would have soldiers all over the world, sucking the life out of our economy and let it continue? Nope.
Do you think that a radicalized version of a religion that is practiced here in the US in that very same radicalized form is a danger to the US and to the interests of this country and its' citizens?
You probably don't. You most likely think that caving to the terrorists demands, (we have and they just move the goal) will make everything okey dokey.
I believe I can chalk you up to the Unrealists side of this equation.
Balgar, the left won't save anyone. It is the policies of leftist leaders such as Bill Clinton that led to the 9-11 attacks be allowed to happen. Had he just put his balls where they should have been, instead of into Monika's mouth, things may be very different now.
Kat? You should so work for Stratfor.
What a perfect analysis.
If you have to lie to get what you want then you need to find something else to want or another way to get it. Was I the only one listening when my mother told me, "Two wrongs do not make a right?"
Post a Comment