CIA: AL QAEDA NEAR DEFEAT

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01



Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.

"One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy," said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. "Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves."

Others warned that al-Qaeda remains capable of catastrophic attacks and may be even more determined to stage a major strike to prove its relevance. "Al-Qaeda's obituary has been written far too often in the past few years for anyone to declare victory," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "I agree that there has been progress. But we're indisputably up against a very resilient and implacable enemy."

A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.

"The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance -- even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Hayden said.

But terrorism experts note the lack of success in the U.S. effort to capture bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Intelligence officials say they think both are living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal area in locations known only to a few top aides. Hayden said capturing or killing the pair remains a top priority, though he noted the difficulties in finding them in a rugged, remote region where the U.S. military is officially forbidden to operate.

The Bush administration has been watching political developments in Pakistan with apprehension, worried that the country's newly elected leadership will not be as tolerant of occasional unilateral U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda as was the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Hayden declined to discuss what agreements, if any, have been brokered with Pakistan's new leaders, but he said, "We're comfortable with the authorities we have."

Since the start of the year, he said, al-Qaeda's global leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed "to violence," an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan. He also cited a successful blow against "training activity" in the region but offered no details. "Those are the kinds of things that delay and disrupt al-Qaeda's planning," Hayden said.

Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren't worried, too," he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA's understanding of al-Qaeda's intent, he said.

"The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where 'safe' is normal," he said. "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

Hayden, who has previously highlighted a gulf between Washington and its European allies on how to battle terrorism, said he is troubled that Congress and many in the media are "focused less on the threat and more on the tactics the nation has chosen to deal with the threat" -- a reference to controversial CIA interrogation techniques approved by Hayden's predecessors.

"The center line of the national discussion has moved, and in our business, our center line is more shaped by the reality of the threat," Hayden said.

On Iraq, he said he is encouraged not only by U.S. success against al-Qaeda's affiliates there, but also by what he described as the steadily rising competence of the Iraqi military and a growing popular antipathy toward jihadism.

"Despite this 'cause c?lebr?' phenomenon, fundamentally no one really liked al-Qaeda's vision of the future," Hayden said. As a result, the insurgency is viewed locally as "more and more a war of al-Qaeda against Iraqis," he said. Hayden specifically cited the recent writings of prominent Sunni clerics -- including some who used to support al-Qaeda -- criticizing the group for its indiscriminant killing of Muslim civilians.

While al-Qaeda misplayed its hand with gruesome attacks on Iraqi civilians, Hayden said, U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials deserve some of the credit for the shift, because they "created the circumstances" for it by building strategic alliances with Sunni and Shiite factions, he said.

Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

"It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period," he said.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
--and for the Obama-Pelosi-Reid and liberal --are we safer skeptics--

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/are_we_safer.html

May 27, 2008
Are We Safer?
By John Hinderaker

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

Some perspective here is required. While most Americans may not have been paying attention, a considerable number of terrorist attacks on America and American interests abroad were launched from the 1980s forward, too many of which were successful. What follows is a partial history:

1988
February: Marine Corps Lt. Colonel Higgens, Chief of the U.N. Truce Force, was kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah.

December: Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York was blown up over Scotland, killing 270 people, including 35 from Syracuse University and a number of American military personnel.

1991
November: American University in Beirut bombed.

1993
January: A Pakistani terrorist opened fire outside CIA headquarters, killing two agents and wounding three.

February: World Trade Center bombed, killing six and injuring more than 1,000.

1995
January: Operation Bojinka, Osama bin Laden's plan to blow up 12 airliners over the Pacific Ocean, discovered.

November: Five Americans killed in attack on a U.S. Army office in Saudi Arabia.

1996
June: Truck bomb at Khobar Towers kills 19 American servicemen and injures 240.

June: Terrorist opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one.

1997
February: Palestinian opens fire at top of Empire State Building, killing one and wounding more than a dozen.

November: Terrorists murder four American oil company employees in Pakistan.

1998
January: U.S. Embassy in Peru bombed.

August: Simultaneous bomb attacks on U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed more than 300 people and injured over 5,000.

1999
October: Egypt Air flight 990 crashed off the coast of Massachusetts, killing 100 Americans among the more than 200 on board; the pilot yelled "Allahu Akbar!" as he steered the airplane into the ocean.

2000
October: A suicide boat exploded next to the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39.

2001
September: Terrorists with four hijacked airplanes kill around 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

December: Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," tries to blow up a transatlantic flight, but is stopped by passengers.

The September 11 attack was a propaganda triumph for al Qaeda, celebrated by a dismaying number of Muslims around the world. Everyone expected that it would draw more Muslims to bin Laden's cause and that more such attacks would follow. In fact, though, what happened was quite different: the pace of successful jihadist attacks against the United States slowed, decelerated further after the onset of the Iraq war, and has now dwindled to essentially zero. Here is the record:

2002
October: Diplomat Laurence Foley murdered in Jordan, in an operation planned, directed and financed by Zarqawi in Iraq, perhaps with the complicity of Saddam's government.

2003
May: Suicide bombers killed 10 Americans, and killed and wounded many others, at housing compounds for westerners in Saudi Arabia.

October: More bombings of United States housing compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 26 and injured 160.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I have omitted from the above accounting a few "lone wolf" Islamic terrorist incidents, like the Washington, D.C. snipers, the Egyptian who attacked the El Al counter in Los Angeles, and an incident or two when a Muslim driver steered his vehicle into a crowd. These are, in a sense, exceptions that prove the rule, since the "lone wolves" were not, as far as we know, in contact with international Islamic terrorist groups and therefore could not have been detected by surveillance of terrorist conversations or interrogations of al Qaeda leaders.

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer. Overthrowing the Taliban and depriving al Qaeda of its training grounds in Afghanistan certainly impaired the effectiveness of that organization. Waterboarding three top al Qaeda leaders for a minute or so apiece may have given us the vital information we needed to head off plots in progress and to kill or apprehend three-quarters of al Qaeda's leadership. The National Security Agency's eavesdropping on international terrorist communications may have allowed us to identify and penetrate cells here in the U.S., as well as to identify and kill terrorists overseas. We may have penetrated al Qaeda's communications network, perhaps through the mysterious Naeem Noor Khan, whose laptop may have been the 21st century equivalent of the Enigma machine. Al Qaeda's announcement that Iraq is the central front in its war against the West, and its call for jihadis to find their way to Iraq to fight American troops, may have distracted the terrorists from attacks on the United States. The fact that al Qaeda loyalists gathered in Iraq, where they have been decimated by American and Iraqi troops, may have crippled their ability to launch attacks elsewhere. The conduct of al Qaeda in Iraq, which revealed that it is an organization of sociopaths, not freedom fighters, may have destroyed its credibility in the Islamic world. The Bush administration's skillful diplomacy may have convinced other nations to take stronger actions against their own domestic terrorists. (This certainly happened in Saudi Arabia, for whatever reason.) Our intelligence agencies may have gotten their act together after decades of failure. The Department of Homeland Security, despite its moments of obvious lameness, may not be as useless as many of us had thought.

No doubt there are officials inside the Bush administration who could better allocate credit among these, and probably other, explanations of our success in preventing terrorist attacks. But based on the clear historical record, it is obvious that the Bush administration has done something since 2001 that has dramatically improved our security against such attacks. To fail to recognize this, and to rail against the Bush administration's security policies as failures or worse, is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attack in the next administration.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,584
231
63
"the bunker"
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A01



Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.

"One of the lessons we can draw from the past two years is that al-Qaeda is its own worst enemy," said Robert Grenier, a former top CIA counterterrorism official who is now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. "Where they have succeeded initially, they very quickly discredit themselves."

Others warned that al-Qaeda remains capable of catastrophic attacks and may be even more determined to stage a major strike to prove its relevance. "Al-Qaeda's obituary has been written far too often in the past few years for anyone to declare victory," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "I agree that there has been progress. But we're indisputably up against a very resilient and implacable enemy."

A landmark study last August by the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies described the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area as a de facto al-Qaeda haven in which terrorist leaders were reorganizing for attacks against the West. But Hayden said counterterrorism successes extend even to that lawless region. Although he would not discuss CIA operations in the area, U.S. intelligence agencies have carried out several attacks there since January, using unmanned Predator aircraft for surgical strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban safe houses.

"The ability to kill and capture key members of al-Qaeda continues, and keeps them off balance -- even in their best safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border," Hayden said.

But terrorism experts note the lack of success in the U.S. effort to capture bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Intelligence officials say they think both are living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal area in locations known only to a few top aides. Hayden said capturing or killing the pair remains a top priority, though he noted the difficulties in finding them in a rugged, remote region where the U.S. military is officially forbidden to operate.

The Bush administration has been watching political developments in Pakistan with apprehension, worried that the country's newly elected leadership will not be as tolerant of occasional unilateral U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda as was the government of President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Hayden declined to discuss what agreements, if any, have been brokered with Pakistan's new leaders, but he said, "We're comfortable with the authorities we have."

Since the start of the year, he said, al-Qaeda's global leadership has lost three senior officers, including two who succumbed "to violence," an apparent reference to Predator strikes that killed terrorist leaders Abu Laith al-Libi and Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi in Pakistan. He also cited a successful blow against "training activity" in the region but offered no details. "Those are the kinds of things that delay and disrupt al-Qaeda's planning," Hayden said.

Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren't worried, too," he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA's understanding of al-Qaeda's intent, he said.

"The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where 'safe' is normal," he said. "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

Hayden, who has previously highlighted a gulf between Washington and its European allies on how to battle terrorism, said he is troubled that Congress and many in the media are "focused less on the threat and more on the tactics the nation has chosen to deal with the threat" -- a reference to controversial CIA interrogation techniques approved by Hayden's predecessors.

"The center line of the national discussion has moved, and in our business, our center line is more shaped by the reality of the threat," Hayden said.

On Iraq, he said he is encouraged not only by U.S. success against al-Qaeda's affiliates there, but also by what he described as the steadily rising competence of the Iraqi military and a growing popular antipathy toward jihadism.

"Despite this 'cause c?lebr?' phenomenon, fundamentally no one really liked al-Qaeda's vision of the future," Hayden said. As a result, the insurgency is viewed locally as "more and more a war of al-Qaeda against Iraqis," he said. Hayden specifically cited the recent writings of prominent Sunni clerics -- including some who used to support al-Qaeda -- criticizing the group for its indiscriminant killing of Muslim civilians.

While al-Qaeda misplayed its hand with gruesome attacks on Iraqi civilians, Hayden said, U.S. military commanders and intelligence officials deserve some of the credit for the shift, because they "created the circumstances" for it by building strategic alliances with Sunni and Shiite factions, he said.

Hayden warned, however, that progress in Iraq is being undermined by increasing interference by Iran, which he accused of supplying weapons, training and financial assistance to anti-U.S. insurgents. While declining to endorse any particular strategy for dealing with Iran, he described the threat in stark terms.

"It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of American and other coalition forces in Iraq. Period," he said.


where`s spy?......lol

seriously,i`m sure most of our libs on the site are happy to read this upbeat assessment....

at the very least,if the iraqi conflict does come to a favorable outcome,that result will almost certainly not come in the next 6 months,so obama may be able to pilfer some claim for it,if it happens during his 4 years at the helm......

even though that would be completely galling,for moi,the important thing is the favorable outcome...
 

JCDunkDogs

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 5, 2002
956
5
0
L.A. Area
We are so safe now, it is going to make it difficult for the Bush Administration to raise the "threat level" to Orange this summer in time for the election.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Aren't these the same guys that said Iraq had WMD. Are these the same guys that said we would be in and out of Iraq in 6 months. Are these the same guys that said the Invasion of Iraq would pay for itself? I hope what they say is true but sorry if I don't buy it.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
We are so safe now, it is going to make it difficult for the Bush Administration to raise the "threat level" to Orange this summer in time for the election.

They really try to walk a fine line with these reports and it started with the 'surge.'

They have to be just rosy enough to try to justify staying with this adventure in Iraq, and just pessimistic enough and cautionary to prevent people from saying, 'well, why aren't the troops coming home then?'

Same 'ol, same 'ol.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Aren't these the same guys that said Iraq had WMD. Are these the same guys that said we would be in and out of Iraq in 6 months. Are these the same guys that said the Invasion of Iraq would pay for itself? I hope what they say is true but sorry if I don't but it.

That would be the guys Stevie. By the way any news on Bin Laden or the Anthrax killers?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

I find this very misleading and disingenuine. Why exclude attacks on American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan? The previous attacks listed include those against servicemen - why are they excluded here?

..Oh I know why - because then the list will look more accurate - and that isn't what the writer wants. Mission accomplished, as they say.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I'm still assuming that if Obama is the nominee, we will see some sort of Sept/Oct surprise - a terror act of some sort, to return Americans to a fear-based voting scenario. I don't think the inner circle probably thinks that would work as well with Hillary, but I'm sure they think it would help with Obama. Maybe they'll go all out this time and Find Bin Laden? Can they afford to wait eight years to regain power?

It's uncanny the timelines of terror acts over the past few years, compared to election time events. It's almost like (dare I say it?!?) the terrorists are trying to help the republicans win? :shrug:
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
I find this very misleading and disingenuine. Why exclude attacks on American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan? The previous attacks listed include those against servicemen - why are they excluded here?

..Oh I know why - because then the list will look more accurate - and that isn't what the writer wants. Mission accomplished, as they say.

Yep since we weren't in Iraq/Afgan prior to 911 you have a point--might be more there now--is that "liberal logic"

Chad UBL certainly is no where near influence he was--Have been several former A-Q coming out now and denouncing violence--

heres latest--this week

The Rebellion Within
An Al Qaeda mastermind questions terrorism.

Last May, a fax arrived at the London office of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al Awsat from a shadowy figure in the radical Islamist movement who went by many names. Born Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, he was the former leader of the Egyptian terrorist group Al Jihad, and known to those in the underground mainly as Dr. Fadl. Members of Al Jihad became part of the original core of Al Qaeda; among them was Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden?s chief lieutenant. Fadl was one of the first members of Al Qaeda?s top council. Twenty years ago, he wrote two of the most important books in modern Islamist discourse; Al Qaeda used them to indoctrinate recruits and justify killing. Now Fadl was announcing a new book, rejecting Al Qaeda?s violence. ?We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that,? Fadl wrote in his fax, which was sent from Tora Prison, in Egypt.

Fadl?s fax confirmed rumors that imprisoned leaders of Al Jihad were part of a trend in which former terrorists renounced violence. His defection posed a terrible threat to the radical Islamists, because he directly challenged their authority. ?There is a form of obedience that is greater than the obedience accorded to any leader, namely, obedience to God and His Messenger,? Fadl wrote, claiming that hundreds of Egyptian jihadists from various factions had endorsed his position.

--Arab leaders in general--
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1982068.stm
 

Tapir Caper

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 14, 2008
583
0
0
Iran isn't sucking ten million dollars a day out of our treasury. Iran isn't making up lies about Israel's WMD as a pretext for invasion. Iran hasn't got 4,000 of our boys killed and 30-50,000 injured.

We didn't have any enemies in the Middle East before 1948.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
They really try to walk a fine line with these reports and it started with the 'surge.'

They have to be just rosy enough to try to justify staying with this adventure in Iraq, and just pessimistic enough and cautionary to prevent people from saying, 'well, why aren't the troops coming home then?'

Same 'ol, same 'ol.

We had 170,000 at peak surge--now 155,000
--believe some came home

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p25s16-usmi.html

The Pentagon is already withdrawing a total of five combat brigades, effectively ending the "surge" of American troops that began about a year ago and that was credited in part for the improved security situation. Nearly three brigades have already redeployed and the remaining two units should be out by July. There are currently 155,000 American troops in Iraq.

granted Matt --info like that hard to find in press

If no soilders are killed today in Iraq- May will have lowest death rate since beginning of war (19)
We'll see what kind of press coverage it gets ;)

Obama-Reid-Pelosi
surge isn't working-war is already lost--iraq is in civil war--blah blah blah.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
We had 170,000 at peak surge--now 155,000
--believe some came home

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0523/p25s16-usmi.html

The Pentagon is already withdrawing a total of five combat brigades, effectively ending the "surge" of American troops that began about a year ago and that was credited in part for the improved security situation. Nearly three brigades have already redeployed and the remaining two units should be out by July. There are currently 155,000 American troops in Iraq.

granted Matt --info like that hard to find in press

If no soilders are killed today in Iraq- May will have lowest death rate since beginning of war (19)
We'll see what kind of press coverage it gets ;)

Obama-Reid-Pelosi
surge isn't working-war is already lost--iraq is in civil war--blah blah blah.


There were about 135,000- 140,000 troops in Iraq
when the 'surge' happened 15 months or so ago. There are now 150,000-160,000.

They've been talking about redeploying '5 brigades' for about a year.

I guess you missed it 'somehow', but redeployments have been delayed until yet another 'assessment report' is fed to us in a few months.

Iraq will be what it will be after we leave. Whether now or in 2013, as McCain promises. :rolleyes: Almost certainly, Iraq will devolve into a civil war until another Saddam-type, most likely sponsored by Iran, emerges.

We cannot affect or pre-determine any countrys destiny, especially in the middle east.

I think it's pretty sick how there are still a few left, thankfully just a few, who have no problem sacrificing our young men and women for this 'cause.'

Whenever we leave, we will not leave a peaceful democracy who is friendly the the United States. It won't be peaceful, it will only be a democracy in the Middle East sense of a democracy and it damn sure won't be our ally.

I agree about the media not coming anywhere near telling the whole story, and not caring. It was pathetic how little they questioned this admin and the 'evidence' in the run-up to the 'war.' They were simply cheerleaders with their giddy embedded reporters and with their showing an endless loop for weeks of Saddams statue coming down.

Just f*cking pathetic.

No matter who wins the election in November and no matter how they handle this 'war', I have NO doubt that somehow you will blame the democrats for the inevitable bloodletting that happens when we leave and i'm sure you will ignore the criminals that actually caused it by going there in the first place.

It's simply amazing that almost 7 years after 9/11, after over five years of us being in Iraq, after reading as much as you do, that you could be so ignorant about how the Middle Eastern countries work.

You still blame congress for cutting off funds for Vietnam. I guess you would love it if we were still there. You ignore Ike, Kennedy, Johnson (most culpable along with his sidekick criminal McNamara) and Nixon (won election based on lies about getting out of Vietnam asap when he actually sent more troops there almost immediately).

We were there to stop the spread of Communism. lol Does that nonsense resonate with you at all about the equally ridiculous 29 different reasons that we've been given about why we're in Iraq?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,514
211
63
Bowling Green Ky
I would hope who ever is next pres and the next are smart enough to keep presents there to serve as deterrence - just as our presents in Kuwait-South Korea and others have kept the wolves at bay.

---and having our arch enemy of future Iran surrounded not a bad perk either.

Best part huge blow to A-Q who vowed to make stand and run us out--and would have happened with some in charge--and still could if get get pres that says--hey you guys come back-we're surrendering--you won years ago -just no one else would believe it--"We believe" :)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Just think of how little influence Bin Laden would have right now if we had paid as much attention to him as we did Saddam, who was conducting that occasional attack of flack sent skyward in the no-fly zones towards our fighter jets that were flying about a mile higher than the flack could reach? Better to fight a guy "over there" that presented no threat to us, than to fight a guy "over there" that had already attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

Or to put it more appropriately, better to make a stupid decision over there, than fight an imaginary threat here, while pulling your attention from a real threat there who could possibly affect a real threat over here.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
I would hope who ever is next pres and the next are smart enough to keep presents there to serve as deterrence - just as our presents in Kuwait-South Korea and others have kept the wolves at bay.

Just how is our having a few thousand troops in Kuwait keep anyone at bay? Who are we keeping at bay by being in Kuwait?

That said, I agree and would have no problem with us having a presence in the region going forward. Stationed in a moderately friendly country like Kuwait, Jordan, etc, where our guys have no fear of being blown up while they drive around.

You still don't understand that when some/any sort of strong government emerges in Iraq, they will TELL us to leave. And we will. By our agreement, no matter who is President. That includes McCain. Once Iran consolidates the power in Iraq, indirectly, they will tell us to leave and we will.



Right now, we are treading water until the Iran led Shia government/Army/Police Forces get on their feet. And WE'RE the ones training it and financing it.

Are you kidding me?

It's comical and sadly ironic that you're worried about Iran, while all we're doing is protecting what will surely be a country annexed, more or less, by Iran. And we're doing all the work. How stupid is THAT?

South Korea? Umm, no. 50% of our 35,000 troops there would be killed or wounded within 24 hours of a massive North Korean invasion. However, our pact with South Korea might be a deterrent to some extent, like our pact with Tawian is probably some sort of deterrent with China, but I assure you that North Korea does not fear our little presence there, in itself.

---and having our arch enemy of future Iran surrounded not a bad perk either.

What? 'Arch-enemy of the future?' My God! They are NO threat to us. Have you not learned anything from this Iraq debacle? No threat. None. WTF?



Best part huge blow to A-Q who vowed to make stand and run us out--and would have happened with some in charge--and still could if get get pres that says--hey you guys come back-we're surrendering--you won years ago -just no one else would believe it--"We believe" :)


They were never *there* before we occupied. As I and others have mentioned a long, long time ago, IRAQI CITIZENS WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH A-Q. THIS PLAYED OUT EXACTLY AS EXPECTED WHEN IRAQI CITIZENS REJECTED AL-QUAEDAS TACTICS.

I mean, seriously, wtf?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top