Comments Posted By chris
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 204 Comments
MAKING THE CASE FOR A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO IRAQ
They have a fledgling air force, a few helicopters, with more to come. Let them get their infantry working, and logistics up and running, and then they'll move up to armor. Walk before you run, don't you know.
We can stay as long as we think there's something in it for the nation. That will be at least until after the 2008 elections, and probably longer, because no matter who wins the election, the facts on the ground will remain unchanged; it is in the nation's interest that we don't let al Qaeda be seen as driving us out. The new leaders will absorb this fact, and then act on it.
Comment Posted By Chris On 8.08.2007 @ 19:30
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
Let me get this straight. Iraq is an unwinnable quagmire, where we trained and work with the army fighting terrorists, but we should invade Pakistan, which has an army that is almost certainly rife with Islamists, and whose people show the most sympathy for terrorists outside of the Palestinians, dozens of nuclear weapons, and whose leader would certainly be deposed upon an American invasion and replace with terrorist enablers.
That's fracking brilliant, that is.
Comment Posted By Chris On 1.08.2007 @ 17:49
Okay, I get it. When the NIE suits your purposes, it's credible. But when it doesn't well then it's full of lies. So you guys are arguing that Bin Laden, Jr. is not in Iran, even though the entire world knows he is. And Iran isn't arming AQI because they really don't want to harm our military effort in Iraq. Regardless of what the US military says (and smoking ied's). Because as everyone knows, they're just itching to fight in Iran. But Senator Webb says the military is against our Iraq involvement so why would they be for an Iranian intervention?
Facts are malleable and apparently any intelligence which contradicts your preconceived notions is also a trumped up Cheney lie. Do you honestly think that 16 agencies came to these conclusions, post-Iraq, because they wanted to see another war in the ME? No need to answer that, of course you do. It's much easier to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that the bad guys are in the US government and not in the ME.
Saddam was peaceful (and secular!) so no problem. Same with Ahmadinejad, I suppose. No threat. No bad intentions. Possibly just misunderstood. The Quds forces killing Americans are rogue elements in AJ's command perhaps. No rationalization is too difficult for you. Can we get some mustard with those pretzels?
Comment Posted By Chris On 17.07.2007 @ 19:37
9-11 was a failure of imagination on our part, Drongo. Everyone, including the 9-11 Commission, agrees on that. The NIE (just out today!) says that Iran is supporting AQ, Leo. Iran can't nuke us without fear of retaliation. But I'm quite certain that if AQ went to Ahmadinejad and laid out a workable plan for detonating a nuke in Manhattan, he'd be willing to entertain the plan as long as Iran maintained deniability. So you guys go on all you want about how Sunni and Shiite will never cooperate. It's nonsense. They have in the past and will in the future when they have an alignment of interests against the West. And if they're not capable of cooperating, why is Iran currently hosting a couple of hundred AQ, including Saad Bin Laden?
Comment Posted By Chris On 17.07.2007 @ 14:26
Leo,
I think your analysis is entirely plausible until you get to this part:"It also is absolutely unlikely that a nuclear armed Iran would give nuclear weapons to AlQaida – these Sunnite extremists are their lethal enemies, and it would be the very last thing Shiite Iran would do: empowering those who want to annihilate them – AlQaida sees Shiites as heretics who have to be extinguished.
The nuclear danger Iran poses to us or Israel is HYPED."
Then how to explain the fact that Iran is currently harboring al Qaeda, including Bin Laden's son, Saad. Sorry but that is one of many talking points which has been eclipsed by facts on the ground (and it was never true but became conventional wisdom anyway). Remember "secular" Saddam would never work with al Qaeda because they were religious fanatics. When Sunni and Shia interests intersect, they are perfectly capable of cooperating. And that would be the same "secular" Saddam who had the Koran transcribed, word for word, in his own blood. They may hate each other but the infidel always takes priority.
And the Iranians may not give nukes to terrorists for a multitude of reasons but it won't be because the terrorists in question happen to be Sunni Muslims rather than Shiite Persians. Don't ask the head of the House Intelligence Committee to flesh out these nuances but those of us who have followed this stuff know otherwise.
FWIW, as I stated this morning, I put little stock in the Guardian report. The really damaging national security secrets come out in the NYT's, as we all know by now.
Comment Posted By Chris On 17.07.2007 @ 01:50
Consider the source--The Guardian. Unreliable.
"A well-placed source in Washington said..."
Probably a "covert" desk jockey at Langley with limited access to anything relevant. Or, more likely, the assistant to said desk jockey. There is undoubtedly a plan on the drawing board, just as for any number of other contingencies. Doesn't make it imminent nor does it rule out a strike on Iran. The regime in Teheran seems to be in self-destruct mode. Hopefully we're offering a covert push.
Comment Posted By Chris On 16.07.2007 @ 09:07
F4tR,
Comment Posted By Chris On 7.07.2007 @ 23:40
Thanks. There's one thing I'd like to amend, the part about not wanting to change Rick's mind regarding Iraq. I'd love to come back and find that he's changed his mind due to an improved outlook in theatre. I don't expect that anytime soon, but one can hope.
Interesting post and comments. Rick has certainly been critical of the war and the politics/handling of same for a long time now. He reminds me of another guy who was very pessimistic starting around 18 months ago, Michael Yon. But I would encourage everyone here to read his recent reportage. He is becoming more optimistic for a host of reasons. The Iraqi military is beginning to step up, for one. Also, the people seem to realize that their fate is between the tender mercies of al Qaeda or the US. And they are beginning to side with the US.
While his reporting is certainly subjective and not dispositive, I think we are beginning to turn the tide there. Sure, the Iraqi politicians suck. Newsflash, they're politicians and they suck. So do most of ours, btw. If the people of Iraq are starting to get it, the politicians should fall into line. If they don't, well then we should talk of pulling out.
I, like Yon, am becoming cautiously optimistic for the first time in about a year. And I really don't care how it plays out domestically in the US. If we can bring a modicum of stability, then it is worth the effort thus far. A pullout can only be viewed as an AQ victory, the consequences of which would be disastrous.
If AQ is not on the ropes at the moment then how to explain the most recent ramblings of Zawahiri? I'm not trying to change Rick's mind, but would encourage a reexamination (if you've already done so, then disregard). We can leave Iraq tomorrow, but make no mistake, we'll end up there again, probably within 5 years. And we'll be reactive rather than pro-active. I hope I'm wrong but recent history suggests otherwise.
Comment Posted By Chris On 7.07.2007 @ 20:33
Obviously Mr. Libby was obstructing the higher justice of removing Mr. Cheney, and perhaps Mr. Bush from office. It's "justiceness", like "truthiness", only with a smaller carbon footprint.
Comment Posted By Chris On 4.07.2007 @ 20:07
Lugar and Voinivich are surrender monkeys. Happy?
Comment Posted By Chris On 27.06.2007 @ 13:09
