HOW POLS EXPLOIT IRAQ CASUALTIES

[Tigermike 3,054]

ABUSING AMERICA'S WAR DEAD

HOW POLS EXPLOIT IRAQ CASUALTIES

Ralph Peters

Equal offenders: Hillary Clinton and President Bush both make political

use of US troops — and Barack Obama is worse.

March 25, 2008 -- LAST Saturday, as the num ber of American fighting men and women killed in Iraq approached 4,000, my wife and I crawled through traffic in the DC suburbs - in the safety, prosperity and congestion that our troops guarantee with their lives.

Up ahead by a traffic light, an unkempt figure held up a hand-lettered sign. But as we inched forward, I realized this was no homeless person.

The man was scrawny and middle-aged, with mad-scientist hair and a wispy beard that proclaimed he had no wife to discipline him - but his clothing was clean (if sloppy). He just looked like one of those guys who nurse their coffee far too long at Starbucks on the weekends.

His sign said: SUPPORT TROOPS BRING HOME. Stingy with definite articles and punctuation, the poor devil seemed as if his cause had been chosen at random, as if he would have been equally distraught over UFO "coverups."

As we passed him by, I would've bet my life that I could tell you three facts about him: He'd never served in our military and didn't know anyone in uniform; he had nothing better to do on that lovely afternoon - and he was a Barack Obama supporter.

Since that lonely activist sighting, our war dead in Iraq reached the 4,000 mark after five full years of war. Historically, and given the scope of the conflict, the figure's remarkably low. Yet, as a former soldier, I know it's a foul against the families to argue either that our casualties are limited or exorbitant. For those who lose a loved one, that single casualty might as well be a million.

Soldiers die in war. They always will. They know that when they sign up or re-enlist. Nonetheless, our nation's leaders have the responsibility to employ our troops as wisely as possible and never to squander their lives for political ends.

As we reached the 4,000th service-member killed in action, I found myself disgusted with both the Bush administration and its irresponsible, cynical opponents. The slogan, "Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home," may be the most dishonest that ever intruded on American politics - but the war's original sponsors haven't rushed their own kids to the recruiting office, either.

With all-too-rare exceptions, our politicians, right or left, really don't give a damn about our troops. Polls matter, grunts don't.

Oh, the pols spout all sorts of rhetoric about how much they honor those in uniform, but they really only value our troops as tools of partisan policies or for photo ops.

Between the incumbent president and his would-be replacements, only one has served in uniform or had a son or daughter serve in uniform. If military service is so praiseworthy, why don't more pols encourage their own kids to sign up? I'll tell you why: They regard our troops as second-raters who couldn't get into Harvard Law or a master's program at Yale.

It's the Leona Helmsley approach to policy: Our troops are the "little people."

Most pols don't even know any service members - except for a few grotesquely ambitious retired generals and admirals.

We've seen President Bush dressed up in a flight suit, grinning like Alfred E. Neuman among troops who desperately want to believe in their commander-in-chief. We've seen Sen. Hillary Clinton do drive-bys in Iraq - just long enough to make political statements, pose with the troops, then zip home.

For his part, Sen. Obama at least has the integrity to not even pretend he cares about the troops - he doesn't go anyplace more dangerous than a Chicago church pew. No recent aspirant for the Oval Office has known or cared so little about our military.

I'm just damned angry. The right won't admit any mistakes in Iraq, while the left seeks to undercut progress there.

Honorable, valiant and tenacious, our troops deserve better leaders. Never in our history have we seen so profound a contrast between those who serve and those who decide how they should be employed.

We also face, for the first time, national-level leaders who would rather lose a war than lose an election.

What actions in Washington would truly honor those 4,000 dead service members?

* From President Bush, a straightforward, no-excuses apology for his administration's arrogance and earlier mistakes in this war.

* From Sen. Clinton, a public denunciation of her Hollywood pals (who keep funding movies portraying our soldiers as atrocity-addicted psychotics) and a commitment to listen to our leading generals before making any decisions regarding troop withdrawals.

* From Sen. Obama, a two-week visit to dirty-boots Army and Marine units in Iraq (not the Green Zone and no photo ops) and a pledge to give a fair hearing to military advice before surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq.

* From both parties in Congress, a return to the policy that, in wartime, politics stops at the water's edge.

Fat chance. We'll see Osama bin Laden become a Baptist first.

Four thousand dead service members in Iraq? Does any reader of this column believe that Bush, Clinton or Obama has lost a single hour of sleep thinking about those troops and their families?

I suspect that pathetic can't-get-a-date-so-I'll-protest-the-war guy on the street corner down here in the DC suburbs felt a more-genuine concern than any of the above.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03252008/posto...dead_103470.htm

[arnaldoabru 11]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

[CCTAU 3,349]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

Hey here's another funny little video for you. Too bad they couldn't fly, huh?

If we do not take the fight to them, they will come here and create more "funny" little people.

Maybe one of them you'll know. Bet your attitude changes if that happens.

Have you forgotten?

[arnaldoabru 11]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

Hey here's another funny little video for you. Too bad they couldn't fly, huh?

If we do not take the fight to them, they will come here and create more "funny" little people.

Maybe one of them you'll know. Bet your attitude changes if that happens.

Have you forgotten?

One more time,Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.There were no WMD.Al Qeda was in Afganistan,were not in Iraq.Saddam was not trying to get yellow cake.If the Communist take over Vietnam then the rest of the world will fall like dominos(sorry wrong era).Shrub has admitted these.Just watch the Frontline piece.It has interviews with some of your own people.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

Hey here's another funny little video for you. Too bad they couldn't fly, huh?

If we do not take the fight to them, they will come here and create more "funny" little people.

Maybe one of them you'll know. Bet your attitude changes if that happens.

Have you forgotten?

I also would have gone after the people that were responsible for 9/11

[CCTAU 3,349]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

Hey here's another funny little video for you. Too bad they couldn't fly, huh?

If we do not take the fight to them, they will come here and create more "funny" little people.

Maybe one of them you'll know. Bet your attitude changes if that happens.

Have you forgotten?

One more time,Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.There were no WMD.Al Qeda was in Afganistan,were not in Iraq.Saddam was not trying to get yellow cake.If the Communist take over Vietnam then the rest of the world will fall like dominos(sorry wrong era).Shrub has admitted these.Just watch the Frontline piece.It has interviews with some of your own people.

We are in a war on terror, not a war on Al Qaida. You libs never seem to get that. Sadaam supported terrorism and claimed to have WMDs. He actually did have them. If you don't believe 500 tons of old WMDs are dangerous, grow some balls and open them in your house. No, they didn't have the stockpiles we thought. But guess what genius, both sides of the house thought the same thing. The bottom line is that terrorists are our enemy. All of them. They are in Iraq. Have been in Iraq. And hopefully will stay in Iraq. If your boy wins and we pull out, the only thing I can hope for is that when they do attack, they get you and not me. But what usually happens is the folks who support the war will get it, and you and the appeasers will be spared. That's why this nation must not elect the closet muslim, achmed Obama.

Seems like you have forgotten. Or maybe it never bothered you in the first place. Some of the rest of us are still just a little angry over it.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The point of the op-ed piece should have been 4,000 troops did not have to die. I'm also amazed that an American would make fun of another American and his right to protest.Imagine those men in Boston looked mighty funny dressed up as indians throwing all that tea of that boat.

I always get a good chuckle when I see those black people getting sprayed by water hoses in Birmingham.

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

Hey here's another funny little video for you. Too bad they couldn't fly, huh?

If we do not take the fight to them, they will come here and create more "funny" little people.

Maybe one of them you'll know. Bet your attitude changes if that happens.

Have you forgotten?

One more time,Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.There were no WMD.Al Qeda was in Afganistan,were not in Iraq.Saddam was not trying to get yellow cake.If the Communist take over Vietnam then the rest of the world will fall like dominos(sorry wrong era).Shrub has admitted these.Just watch the Frontline piece.It has interviews with some of your own people.

We are in a war on terror, not a war on Al Qaida. You libs never seem to get that. Sadaam supported terrorism and claimed to have WMDs. He actually did have them. If you don't believe 500 tons of old WMDs are dangerous, grow some balls and open them in your house. No, they didn't have the stockpiles we thought. But guess what genius, both sides of the house thought the same thing. The bottom line is that terrorists are our enemy. All of them. They are in Iraq. Have been in Iraq. And hopefully will stay in Iraq. If your boy wins and we pull out, the only thing I can hope for is that when they do attack, they get you and not me. But what usually happens is the folks who support the war will get it, and you and the appeasers will be spared. That's why this nation must not elect the closet muslim, achmed Obama.

Seems like you have forgotten. Or maybe it never bothered you in the first place. Some of the rest of us are still just a little angry over it.

I thought it was Al Qaida that attcked us on 9/11. They weren't in Iraq,they are now.Saddam had no use for Bin Ladden.Al Qaida attacks are a minority of the attacks against our troops.The only known terrorist in Iraq prior to the invasion was assignated.

As for as WMD'S go.Yes he at one time had them, and used them(we had also helped him get them).There was plenty of intelligence prior to the war to support that he no longer had stockpiles.Our source for him having WMD's was a drunken nephew of one of Chalibi's buddies who even the Germans did not believe was credible.It later turned out he made it all up to get a green card.

So why did Sadam act like he had WMD's?

You have 3 enemies. Who do you fear the most.

-The one half away across the world

-The one in the next neighborhood

-The one in the house next door

Sadam believed his greatest threats were Iran(the one in the next neighborhood) who he had had a bloody 8 year war with.He needed the Iranians to believe that he still had WMD'S

His other threat(the ones in the house next door) were the Shia majority in his own country.He had used gas on them before and being a Sunni,minority leader,he needed them to believe he would use them again if threatend.

We tore Iraq up looking for WMD's after the invasion.Being the biggest part of Bush's reason for invasion if we would have found a rusted can of Lysol we would have parraded it around to the world to say "see I told you"

Why do you believe Obama is a closet Muslim? Beacuse of his name?Because of a muslim father he hardly knew. I know it was those elementary schools he attended in Indonesia for 4 years.

Let's see,one(attended for 2 years) was a Catholic school.Your right,you never know about those Catholics.

The other was an Indonesian public school.They had to wear special clothing.Called uniforms.Like what many private school children in America wear.There were also Christain,Bhuddest, and Confussionest children who attended the school.Since Indonesia is one of the largest Muslim populated countries in the world the majority of the children who attended the school would have been....Muslim.

It's not really the Muslims,Bhuddist, or Confusionist that scare me it is the Zoraastrians we need to be worried about.

[OldNewby 27]

Frontline just did a very infromative piece on the war.Maybe you should watch it.

On Saddam’s Order

The Iraqi tyrant didn’t “just” aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack.

By Mark Eichenlaub

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

The most contentious issue regarding Saddam Hussein and terrorism may be the extent to which Saddam supported anti-American terrorist groups (as opposed to his more agreed-upon support for anti-Israeli groups), particularly Islamic terrorist groups. On this topic the report says that Saddam’s animosity towards the United States continued after the first Gulf War, so he reached out to and supported Islamic-fundamentalist and related terrorist organizations that also saw the U.S. as an enemy. Internal Iraqi documents reveal that Saddam’s regime knew it had to keep these relations top secret, due to the increased Western scrutiny that Islamic terrorism began receiving during the 1990s because of Iran’s open support for Hezbollah.

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al-Qaeda — as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.

From 1991 through 2003 the Hussein regime “regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.” White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe commented to me that the report confirms that Saddam “had ties to regional terrorism” and that in a region where there was “no lack of terrorist groups willing to attack the U.S.,” it was not surprising to see who Saddam had been supporting.

The former regime’s stash of documents includes a list of some of the groups that were willing to commit these attacks on behalf of the Iraqi regime. The “Renewal and Jihad Organization” was one group willing to “carry out operations against American interests at any time.” The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (al-Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri’s group, which merged with Osama bin Laden’s terrorists to form al-Qaeda) is described in the report as having “agreed” on a plan for attacks against the Egyptian government. The Islamic Scholars Group in Pakistan is described by Iraqi officials as willing to “carry out any assignment we task them with.” Another Pakistani organization, which the report refers to as the Pakistan Scholars Group, is listed as not being “tasked with commando operations during the (Gulf) war,” possibly implying that the group was available to commit “operations” at Iraq’s beckoning. (For more on Saddam Hussein’s associations with Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ray Robison’s “Both in One Trench” is a must read.)

The report also reveals that in the late 1990s Saddam was willing to “support or co-opt” a group named “Army of Muhammad” that it knew to be loyal to Osama bin Laden. Iraq was aware that the group had plans to attack American military bases in Arab countries (a goal that Saddam’s regime shared) and American embassies (another shared goal). Internal Iraqi documents note that the group was seeking Iraqi assistance, though they do not mention what Iraq’s response was. Saddam was impressed with al-Qaeda attacks on American embassies and other targets, and his pattern of support for groups wishing to attack American interests suggests that refusing to grant the desired assistance to the Army of Muhammad would have been a deviation from normal behavior.

Another document lists an Islamic militant group in Afghanistan as dependent on Iraq for financing, and an Islamic group in Egypt as agreeing to make attacks in exchange for financing and training from Iraq. Saddam’s regime also provided supervision and oversight, as well as 30,000 rifles and 10,000 pistols, to help get a Sudanese terrorist training camp off the ground at a time when anti-American Islamic terror groups were prevalent in the country. According to the report, Saddam’s regime also maintained in-country training camps for all kinds of non-Iraqi groups, many of which were looking to destabilize America’s allies in the Middle East.

Other documents show that a Kurdish Islamic group received “financial and moral support” from Saddam’s regime and that the regime wanted to establish an organizational relationship with the group. This is probably the group referred to later in the report as conducting attacks against American and other U.N. humanitarian workers, as well as Kurdish officials and civilians, on behalf of the Iraqi regime.

A September 2001 document mentions Saddam’s efforts “make common cause” with a number of Islamic radical groups in Kuwait, including a Shiite group. Another document mentions a Sri Lankan group that volunteered to carry out suicide bombings on Saddam’s orders during the first Gulf war. Additional internal memos show Iraqi officials reporting to one another that Hamas was willing through the 1990s to conduct suicide attacks against Americans on behalf of Saddam’s Iraq. These memos also listed Abu Abbas, the notorious Palestinian terrorist, as another man willing to lead his forces for Saddam in attacks against Americans.

The sheer number and consistency of Saddam Hussein’s contacts and agreements with, and assistance for, terrorist groups show that these relationships were part of a larger pattern, as Saddam looked to expand his relations with anti-American Islamic militant and terror groups. The authors note that some of these groups took orders from Saddam’s regime to carry out attacks on American interests and allies.

A less contentious issue is the use of terrorism by arms of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and security branches. In 1993 Saddam ordered his men to “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia.” This occurred within days of al-Qaeda’s decision to do the same thing. In 1990 terrorists acting on behalf of the Iraqi regime attempted to bomb an American ambassador’s home in Jakarta and an American Airlines office and the Japanese embassy in the Philippines.

The regime later showed a willingness to use suicide terrorism, possibly due to the limited effectiveness of previous anti-U.S. attacks. A late September 2001 document reveals that the Iraqi regime had been recruiting volunteers for suicide attacks. The authors state that training for suicide bombings became so routine that eventually a formal national policy and training schedule were adopted. Some of the regime’s willing “martyrs” were likely the topic of a document pertaining to plots in Saudi Arabia, for which these suicide bombers signed secret agreement forms affirming their commitment to Saddam. Plots described in additional documents (and possibly referring to the same plots) discussed blowing up buildings in Saudi Arabia (a country that did see terror attacks of this nature during the 1990s) and killing members of Kuwait’s royal family. Again, it should be noted that these terrorist attacks were to be committed at Saddam’s behest and to be done secretly.

The files continued to detail orders for “operatives (being) sent into countries around Iraq to attack American installations.” In these examples we have direct orders from Saddam to Iraqis and non-Iraqis to target and kill Americans.

The former regime’s documents also discuss a 1999/2001 plan called “Operation Basra Revenge” that would have used missiles, rockets, and later suicide attacks with speedboats to “destroy American and British naval vessels.” (This document was pointed out by the writer Scott Malensek.)

The report details the regime’s production of suicide vests, IEDs, and car bombs for plots that included targets in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Saddam’s embassies in these countries were warehouses for missile launchers, plastic explosives, TNT, Kalashnikovs, booby-trapped suitcases, and grenades. These tools were all available to a regime that had internal orders to attack American civilians, military members, bases, embassies, and ships.

All this capability would be meaningless, of course, if there were no intention of using it. The authors make clear that Saddam was willing to conduct anti-American terrorism, saying: “Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.”

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . .  a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price. 

 — Mark Eichenlaub is the manager and editor of www.regimeofterror.com, a site dedicated to detailing Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism.

Link: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQzM...DFhNzllOWVkNDQ=

[arnaldoabru 11]

Saddam, however, found it immposible to abandon the ILLUSION of having WMD, especially since it played so well in the Arab world'

'Ali Hassan al Majid,known as "Chemical Ali" was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD"

"Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors 'in order not to give President Bush any excusses to start a war'

Iraqi Perspective Report

[CCTAU 3,349]

"Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors 'in order not to give President Bush any excusses to start a war'

Iraqi Perspective Report

But then he didn't. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Who is lying here. There were many places that the UN team was not allowed to go. And the ones they were allowed to see, they usually had to wait a day or so to do it. Plenty of time to move anything that was stored.

Sadaam screwed up. He gambled and lost. He supported terrorists. He continued to support terrorist after we announced to the world that anyone not with us is against us. So regardless of WMDs, or whatever, Sadaam broke over 14 UN resolutions. If these resolutions mean nothing, then dissolve the UN and we'll take matters into our own hands. The world is safer for it.

[arnaldoabru 11]

"Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors 'in order not to give President Bush any excusses to start a war'

Iraqi Perspective Report

But then he didn't. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Who is lying here. There were many places that the UN team was not allowed to go. And the ones they were allowed to see, they usually had to wait a day or so to do it. Plenty of time to move anything that was stored.

Sadaam screwed up. He gambled and lost. He supported terrorists. He continued to support terrorist after we announced to the world that anyone not with us is against us. So regardless of WMDs, or whatever, Sadaam broke over 14 UN resolutions. If these resolutions mean nothing, then dissolve the UN and we'll take matters into our own hands. The world is safer for it.

I thought you didn't like the UN?

[CCTAU 3,349]

"Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to UN inspectors 'in order not to give President Bush any excusses to start a war'

Iraqi Perspective Report

But then he didn't. So I'm not sure what you are saying. Who is lying here. There were many places that the UN team was not allowed to go. And the ones they were allowed to see, they usually had to wait a day or so to do it. Plenty of time to move anything that was stored.

Sadaam screwed up. He gambled and lost. He supported terrorists. He continued to support terrorist after we announced to the world that anyone not with us is against us. So regardless of WMDs, or whatever, Sadaam broke over 14 UN resolutions. If these resolutions mean nothing, then dissolve the UN and we'll take matters into our own hands. The world is safer for it.

I thought you didn't like the UN?

Eggs are now 20 cents a dozen in China.....Go figure.