War on Terror on Iraq Front Nearing End

[AFTiger 282]

Al Qaeda Discusses Losing Iraq

May 27, 2008:

Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about "why we lost in Iraq." Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.

Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This "betrayal" is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.

This defeat was not as sudden as it appeared to be, and some Islamic terrorist web sites have been discussing the problem for several years. The primary cause has been Moslems killed as a side effect of attacks on infidel troops, Iraqi security forces and non-Sunnis. Al Qaeda plays down the impact of this, calling the Moslem victims "involuntary martyrs." But that's a minority opinion. Most Moslems, and many other Islamic terrorists, see this as a surefire way to turn the Moslem population against the Islamic radicals. That's what happened earlier in Algeria, Afghanistan, Egypt and many other places. It's really got nothing to do with religion. The phenomenon hits non-Islamic terrorists as well (like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA).

The senior al Qaeda leadership saw the problem, and tried to convince the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership to cool it. That didn't work. As early as 2004, some Sunni Arabs were turning on al Qaeda because of the "involuntary martyrs" problem. The many dead Shia Arab civilians led to a major terror campaign by the Shia majority. They controlled the government, had the Americans covering their backs, and soon half the Sunni Arab population were refugees.

Meanwhile, the "Al Qaeda In Iraq" leadership was out of control. Most of these guys are really out there, at least in terms of fanaticism and extremism. This led to another fatal error. They declared the establishment of the "Islamic State of Iraq" in late 2006. This was an act of bravado, and touted as the first step in the re-establishment of the caliphate (a global Islamic state, ruled over by God's representative on earth, the caliph.) The caliphate has been a fiction for over a thousand years. Early on, the Islamic world was split by ethnic and national differences, and the first caliphate fell apart after a few centuries. Various rulers have claimed the title over the centuries, but since 1924, when the Turks gave it up (after four centuries), no one of any stature has taken it up. So when al Qaeda "elected" a nobody as the emir of the "Islamic State of Iraq", and talked about this being the foundation of the new caliphate, even many pro-al Qaeda Moslems were aghast. When al Qaeda could not, in 2007, exercise any real control over the parts of Iraq they claimed as part of the new Islamic State, it was the last straw. The key supporters, battered by increasingly effective American and Iraqi attacks, dropped their support for al Qaeda, and the terrorist organization got stomped to bits by the "surge offensive" of last year. The final insult was delivered by the former Iraqi Sunni Arab allies, who quickly switched sides, and sometimes even worked with the Americans (more so than the Shia dominated Iraqi security forces) to hunt down and kill al Qaeda operators.

If you can read Arabic, you can easily find these pro-terrorism sites, and see for yourself how al Qaeda is trying to explain its own destruction to its remaining supporters. While it's common to assume the Information War has been going against the West, this was not the case when you checked with what was going on inside the enemy camp.

Link

[otterinbham 0]

I think crowing 'We Won' is a bit hubristic, and reminds me too much of the 'Mission Accomplished' banner that greeted W on the deck of the aircraft carrier two short months after we began the invasion of Iraq.

I have two conflicting responses to this post. First, I am happy that the tide of chaos that engulfed Iraq in 2004, 2005, and 2006 seems to have abated.

However, I also know that this reversal only came four years after our invasion, mainly because the administrators of the occupation finally faced reality and developed a true strategy, rather than following the original notion of invading and occupying on the cheap. The first four years in Iraq reflect a shameful neglect of the realities in the field, a blind disregard for planning, and a sunny optimism that belied the political realities of the region.

So, yeah, we may have a victory in Iraq. But it's a pyrrhic one, salvaged by General Patraeus and the lessons of asymmetrical warfare finally learned from the British colonial experiences. What's more, the entire misadventure came perilously close to an absolute disaster, not because of a craven American public, not because of a dubious press, not because of backbiting Democrats, but due to the myopia of an administration that never gave a thought to what would happen the day after our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I think crowing 'We Won' is a bit hubristic, and reminds me too much of the 'Mission Accomplished' banner that greeted W on the deck of the aircraft carrier two short months after we began the invasion of Iraq.

I have two conflicting responses to this post. First, I am happy that the tide of chaos that engulfed Iraq in 2004, 2005, and 2006 seems to have abated.

However, I also know that this reversal only came four years after our invasion, mainly because the administrators of the occupation finally faced reality and developed a true strategy, rather than following the original notion of invading and occupying on the cheap. The first four years in Iraq reflect a shameful neglect of the realities in the field, a blind disregard for planning, and a sunny optimism that belied the political realities of the region.

So, yeah, we may have a victory in Iraq. But it's a pyrrhic one, salvaged by General Patraeus and the lessons of asymmetrical warfare finally learned from the British colonial experiences. What's more, the entire misadventure came perilously close to an absolute disaster, not because of a craven American public, not because of a dubious press, not because of backbiting Democrats, but due to the myopia of an administration that never gave a thought to what would happen the day after our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

What he said.

[AFTiger 282]

In some regards you are right. We have have had this discussion before. But despite the errors and poor planning and the hostility from our own, lessons were learned and adjustments made.

Having studied war, I realize that each and every war starts optimistically and then is blindsided by reality and this one was no different. As for "Mission Accomplished" it was. Sadaam was removed and that phase of the war was ended. We just didn't anticipate that AQ would respond the way it did. The fact is that AQ decided to fight us in Iraq, threw its resources there and is being defeated.

.

[otterinbham 0]

In some regards you are right. We have have had this discussion before. But despite the errors and poor planning and the hostility from our own, lessons were learned and adjustments made.

Having studied war, I realize that each and every war starts optimistically and then is blindsided by reality and this one was no different. As for "Mission Accomplished" it was. Sadaam was removed and that phase of the war was ended. We just didn't anticipate that AQ woould respond. The fact is that AQ decided to fight us in Iraq, threw its resources there and is being defeated.

.

If you study war, then you know that there's an enormous gulf between thinking tactically and thinking strategically. You should also be aware of Clauswitz's dictum that war and politics are interrelated. You cannot wage war without a political end in mind. In the case of the Iraq conflict, the actual conduct of the war was brilliant. The aftermath of the war was an absolute catastrophe, the result of abysmal planning. The resulting civil chaos paved the way for misery.

And, regarding Al Queda, that contingency was fully expected. The possibility was thoroughly discussed by Pentagon planners early on, but was roundly rejected by the Administration, who were guided by the childlike belief that, once Saddam Hussein was deposed, Iraqis would simply organize themselves into a peaceful democratic society and a prosperous economy.

[AFTiger 282]

But we are still defeating them. Now what? Surrender as we did in Vietnam?

[otterinbham 0]

But we are still defeating them. Now what? Surrender as we did in Vietnam?

That response is a non sequitur. We have no choice but to stay at this point. However, that doesn't excuse the Bush administration for the miserable prosecution of this conflict.

You're right in a number of ways. War plans typically become useless a nanosecond after the bullets begin to fly. It's how planners adjust to the unexpected that really matter. After all, before World War II, naval planners completely discounted intelligence reports regarding the range and capability of the Japanese Long Lance torpedo--the proof is rusting on Iron Bottom Sound off Guadalcanal today. Yet, when faced with reality, military planners began immediately discussing countermeasures and countertactics.

The American experience in Iraq was the opposite. What I can tell you is that, for the first three years of the war, there was typically a 4-6 month hiatus between a new enemy tactic being introduced in the field, and an effective response being formulated and introduced to our troops. Had our military in 1944 had a similarly sclerotic response, we'd still be fighting in the hedgerow country of Normandy. However, the top-down military doctrine in Iraq, reflecting the skewed vision of Donald Rumsfeld, et al, could not change to meet new challenges in the field, chiefly because it did not jibe with the administration's view on how the war should be fought.

[autigeremt 6,652]

Otter.....the war we faught in the "hedgerow" and the war we fight today is a contrast of styles and theocracy. We were not so intrenched in collateral damage back then, and we were fighting a uniformed military force who didn't want to die. These people use tactics that are in reverse of the normal battlefield.

Just my take. I'm not an expert, but I did hit a few hot spots in my tour a few years back. The enemy I fought resides in central america.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter.....the war we faught in the "hedgerow" and the war we fight today is a contrast of styles and theocracy. We were not so intrenched in collateral damage back then, and we were fighting a uniformed military force who didn't want to die. These people use tactics that are in reverse of the normal battlefield.

Just my take. I'm not an expert, but I did hit a few hot spots in my tour a few years back. The enemy I fought resides in central america.

Thank you for your service to our country. Please consider my views as respectful disagreement.

Different enemy yes. But also, significantly, an utterly different response to problem solving. In Normandy, troops improvised tactics in the field and quickly developed effective countermeasures. In fact, Rommel wrote discouraging reports home to Berlin, noting that he felt as if he were fighting a completely different American army everyday--all because of our capacity to adapt. I would also like to address your point that we are facing a fanatical enemy. We did much the same against the Japanese, who were willing to die to the last man. Yet we prevailed in the Pacific, even though we were at a considerable material disadvantage after Pearl Harbor, and that the Pacific war was quite often fought on a shoestring.

However, because the aftermath of the conventional aspect of the Iraq conflict had such a strong, top-down ideological viewpoint, it became much more difficult to implement widespread tactical changes. Having been on the inside, I know that the asymmetrical warfare espoused by Petraeus (and eventually used successfully) was staunchly resisted at the top. Only when things became dire in late 2006, after Rumsfeld's ignominious departure (firing), did the administration entertain a different approach to the problem. Those four years between the fall of Baghdad and the beginnings of the surge were longer than our war against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the administration's ability to change tactics.

Had the administration listened to the voice of reality in 2002 and 2003, or even 2004, we would have faced a much easier situation in the field.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I agree with your issues with Rumsfeld. I hated the choice from day one. He's an idiot in my mind. I wanted to see Powell as the Sec. of Defense.

I don't know what you think about this, but I also think our forces depend on technology a little too much. What do you think?

[AFTiger 282]

Otter.....the war we faught in the "hedgerow" and the war we fight today is a contrast of styles and theocracy. We were not so intrenched in collateral damage back then, and we were fighting a uniformed military force who didn't want to die. These people use tactics that are in reverse of the normal battlefield.

Just my take. I'm not an expert, but I did hit a few hot spots in my tour a few years back. The enemy I fought resides in central america.

Different enemy yes. But also, significantly, an utterly different response to problem solving. In Normandy, troops improvised tactics in the field and quickly developed effective countermeasures. In fact, Rommel wrote discouraging reports home to Berlin, noting that he felt as if he were fighting a completely different American army everyday--all because of our capacity to adapt.

However, because the aftermath of the conventional aspect of the Iraq conflict had such a strong, top-down ideological viewpoint, it became much more difficult to implement widespread tactical changes. Having been on the inside, I know that the asymmetrical warfare espoused by Petraeus (and eventually used successfully) was staunchly resisted at the top. Only when things became dire in late 2006, after Rumsfeld's ignominious departure (firing), did the administration entertain a different approach to the problem. Those four years between the fall of Baghdad and the beginnings of the surge were longer than our war against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the administration's ability to change tactics.

Had the administration listened to the voice of reality in 2002 and 2003, or even 2004, we would have faced a much easier situation in the field.

That was a war of nations and armies. This is a assymetric war of insurgency which historicaly takes much longer. Refresh my memory but the Philippine insurgency is ongoing. My point is, we are on the precipice of victory and all we are doing is rehashing history. Had it not been for this President, we would have abadoned Iraq long ago and been fighting AQ elsewhere possibly here.

[otterinbham 0]

I agree with your issues with Rumsfeld. I hated the choice from day one. He's an idiot in my mind. I wanted to see Powell as the Sec. of Defense.

I don't know what you think about this, but I also think our forces depend on technology a little too much. What do you think?

I'm getting out of my depth when it comes to that area. I think a lot of it really depends on what kind of war you're fighting and how successfully technology is seen as facilitating good tactics, training, and execution, rather than as a crutch. For example, Predator drones have been incredibly effective in intelligence gathering, support for ground troops, and the select elimination of high value political targets.

My worry about a high tech military is more a question of mass production in the event of a large scale conflict, not to mention susceptibility to sophisticated countermeasures. For asymmetrical warfare and brushfire wars, high technology provides a decided advantage against a technically less-sophisticated opponent. If, God forbid, we got into a tangle with the Chinese or the North Koreans (Our only conceivable conventional opponents at this point), would we be able to quickly replace these weapons? A lot hangs on the answer to this question.

[otterinbham 0]

Otter.....the war we faught in the "hedgerow" and the war we fight today is a contrast of styles and theocracy. We were not so intrenched in collateral damage back then, and we were fighting a uniformed military force who didn't want to die. These people use tactics that are in reverse of the normal battlefield.

Just my take. I'm not an expert, but I did hit a few hot spots in my tour a few years back. The enemy I fought resides in central america.

Different enemy yes. But also, significantly, an utterly different response to problem solving. In Normandy, troops improvised tactics in the field and quickly developed effective countermeasures. In fact, Rommel wrote discouraging reports home to Berlin, noting that he felt as if he were fighting a completely different American army everyday--all because of our capacity to adapt.

However, because the aftermath of the conventional aspect of the Iraq conflict had such a strong, top-down ideological viewpoint, it became much more difficult to implement widespread tactical changes. Having been on the inside, I know that the asymmetrical warfare espoused by Petraeus (and eventually used successfully) was staunchly resisted at the top. Only when things became dire in late 2006, after Rumsfeld's ignominious departure (firing), did the administration entertain a different approach to the problem. Those four years between the fall of Baghdad and the beginnings of the surge were longer than our war against Germany, Japan, and Italy. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the administration's ability to change tactics.

Had the administration listened to the voice of reality in 2002 and 2003, or even 2004, we would have faced a much easier situation in the field.

That was a war of nations and armies. This is a assymetric war of insurgency which historicaly takes much longer. Refresh my memory but the Philippine insurgency is ongoing. My point is, we are on the precipice of victory and all we are doing is rehashing history. Had it not been for this President, we would have abadoned Iraq long ago and been fighting AQ elsewhere possibly here.

I take serious issue with your point. If Colin Powell or John McCain had been in the Oval Office rather than W, it is quite likely that the insurgency would never arisen in Iraq, due chiefly to a more enlightened strategy for a post-conflict Iraq. As I've said in the past umpteen posts, there was a total lack of planning for the results of conventional victory. Chaos was the predictable outcome.

As far as the Philippine insurgency is concerned, it has been going on for decades, even centuries, and is rooted in the ethnic, religious, political, and cultural divides of the country. Further, we actually have boots on the ground in the Philippines in an advisory capacity, and there are tangible signs of progress. Part of the progress stems from the country's economic development, and part of it stems from the development of an actual domestically-inspired democratic government. Would you really fling a few divisions onto Mindanao, particularly when the national government is proving its effectiveness and our national interests are not threatened?

[tiger88 934]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

[RunInRed 16,438]

This is a really good thread.

[otterinbham 0]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

I understand what you're saying. And, you're right, you really can't predict every possible outcome. However, in wargame after wargame before the actual hostilities began, the country descended into mass civil disorder and even civil war. These outcomes were swept under the rug by key decision makers in the Pentagon because of the unpopular response received in the administration. That, you would agree, is unforgivable.

[AFTiger 282]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

I understand what you're saying. And, you're right, you really can't predict every possible outcome. However, in wargame after wargame before the actual hostilities began, the country descended into mass civil disorder and even civil war. These outcomes were swept under the rug by key decision makers in the Pentagon because of the unpopular response received in the administration. That, you would agree, is unforgivable.

Out of curiosity, which book has this information?

[otterinbham 0]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

I understand what you're saying. And, you're right, you really can't predict every possible outcome. However, in wargame after wargame before the actual hostilities began, the country descended into mass civil disorder and even civil war. These outcomes were swept under the rug by key decision makers in the Pentagon because of the unpopular response received in the administration. That, you would agree, is unforgivable.

Out of curiosity, which book has this information?

From my own ears. For three years I did a lot of defense contracting work. I sat in on a lot of discussion sessions with majors, colonels, and brigadier generals. And I mean a lot.

[tiger88 934]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

I understand what you're saying. And, you're right, you really can't predict every possible outcome. However, in wargame after wargame before the actual hostilities began, the country descended into mass civil disorder and even civil war. These outcomes were swept under the rug by key decision makers in the Pentagon because of the unpopular response received in the administration. That, you would agree, is unforgivable.

Hey don't put words in my mouth.

I don't really know if it was unforgivable. I'm guessing that some war games had positive outcomes, wouldn't be surprised if it was a minority. I am still in the wait and see mode afa whether in the long term this will turn out to be a war with "good" or "bad" results. For all we know if sadam had been left alone he may helped fund another 9-11 (maybe worse) type attack on America (not saying he funded the 1st one). Maybe there were some who blatantly lied to achieve their goals which will ultimately hurt America. I don't have enough info. to make a firm decision.

Not sure how much credence I give this guys book either. Like I said earlier, the way he remained silent about his feelings for so long when he could have easily voiced them and had his opinion heard, and now comes out with a bombshell book around election time (which is nothing short of a stab in the back of his long time employment provider), makes me question his motives and character. I don't care if he is a Christian who lives in the church.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Hindsight is always 20/20. Not saying that there weren't errors made. It was a not before seen scenario and Monday morning qb is the easiest job in the world, especially when your theories will never be able to be proven. Not saying some critique/evaluation isn't a good thing as well.

Also, with AQ admitting some defeat here can't help but think they may be admitting this since they may realize they can't win there and want to appear weak while reorganizing for other 9-11 type stuff. I tend to believe as a whole they are not as strong as just pre-9/11.

I understand what you're saying. And, you're right, you really can't predict every possible outcome. However, in wargame after wargame before the actual hostilities began, the country descended into mass civil disorder and even civil war. These outcomes were swept under the rug by key decision makers in the Pentagon because of the unpopular response received in the administration. That, you would agree, is unforgivable.

Hey don't put words in my mouth.

I don't really know if it was unforgivable. I'm guessing that some war games had positive outcomes, wouldn't be surprised if it was a minority. I am still in the wait and see mode afa whether in the long term this will turn out to be a war with "good" or "bad" results. For all we know if sadam had been left alone he may helped fund another 9-11 (maybe worse) type attack on America (not saying he funded the 1st one). Maybe there were some who blatantly lied to achieve their goals which will ultimately hurt America. I don't have enough info. to make a firm decision.

Not sure how much credence I give this guys book either. Like I said earlier, the way he remained silent about his feelings for so long when he could have easily voiced them and had his opinion heard, and now comes out with a bombshell book around election time (which is nothing short of a stab in the back of his long time employment provider), makes me question his motives and character. I don't care if he is a Christian who lives in the church.

Here's why I believe him in spite of your assume the worst take (though why the worst is only assumed of McClellan and not Rove, Cheney and that gang I don't quite understand).

I voted for Bush twice. I supported him and gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But slowly, over time and a lot of thought and consideration (and resistance because I didn't want to believe it), my mind began to change. I didn't go from supporting the war and Bush one day to ticked off the next. It took a couple of years or so. About 12-18 months ago, I knew and over those last few months it's only become more resolute: I think we were fed a line of bull****. I don't believe the reasons given were the real reasons we went to war and I think it's because they knew we wouldn't go for it under those reasons. I don't think we needed to go into Iraq. I think the administration tried everything in it's mule-like stubborn power to FUBAR the whole thing up for 2-3 years. And it cost us 4000 American lives not to mention countless innocent Iraqis. And I'm pissed. And only in the last little bit have I had the stones to admit it and say so publicly.

Therefore, I can understand why McClellan might not have said something. He's a press secretary amongst some very powerful, determined people. He's known Bush for a long time and wants to believe the best of him. But little by little over time he starts putting the pieces together. After he's had time to digest all he knows and really remember all the things he saw and heard, he gets the same thing in the pit of his gut I got and it hacks him off. Not only at the people in the administration who lied to him but at himself for either going along or not standing up or not putting it all together sooner and doing something about it. But he believes the truth ought to be told.

So what if he put it into a book he can sell? It's not like this could be encapsulated in a 3 page article in USA Today. I'd do the same thing if I thought the message was important enough.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's why I believe him in spite of your assume the worst take (though why the worst is only assumed of McClellan and not Rove, Cheney and that gang I don't quite understand).

I voted for Bush twice. I supported him and gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But slowly, over time and a lot of thought and consideration (and resistance because I didn't want to believe it), my mind began to change. I didn't go from supporting the war and Bush one day to ticked off the next. It took a couple of years or so. About 12-18 months ago, I knew and over those last few months it's only become more resolute: I think we were fed a line of bull****. I don't believe the reasons given were the real reasons we went to war and I think it's because they knew we wouldn't go for it under those reasons. I don't think we needed to go into Iraq. I think the administration tried everything in it's mule-like stubborn power to FUBAR the whole thing up for 2-3 years. And it cost us 4000 American lives not to mention countless innocent Iraqis. And I'm pissed. And only in the last little bit have I had the stones to admit it and say so publicly.

Therefore, I can understand why McClellan might not have said something. He's a press secretary amongst some very powerful, determined people. He's known Bush for a long time and wants to believe the best of him. But little by little over time he starts putting the pieces together. After he's had time to digest all he knows and really remember all the things he saw and heard, he gets the same thing in the pit of his gut I got and it hacks him off. Not only at the people in the administration who lied to him but at himself for either going along or not standing up or not putting it all together sooner and doing something about it. But he believes the truth ought to be told.

So what if he put it into a book he can sell? It's not like this could be encapsulated in a 3 page article in USA Today. I'd do the same thing if I thought the message was important enough.

I'll vouch for this. Time was, you were among the heaviest kool-aid drinking Bushbots on this site. Anyone who doesn't believe it can simply search your posts and see that it's true. It's been interesting to watch you change over the years.

[autigeremt 6,652]

I'm in no way a Bush supporter in terms of "BushBot", like Al said (good nickname). I can't stand lock step unless it's 100% in the right direction.

The war in Iraq was, in my opinion, a creation of past intel combined with the fears of an uncontrolled Saddam and his over and over again refusals to allow weapon inspectors in and his continued aggressive posture towards the U.S. Saddam created the "reasoning" for the war from the start. I'm not saying it wasn't "spiced" by those in the U.S. who had sought Asylum. If Saddam follows the U.N. mandates, he's still alive today ruling Iraq. I'm also not nieve to think oil had some influence. National interests in that region has always revolved around oil.

Now, I also think Saddam was protecting his interests with Iran. He wanted Iran to think he had WMD as a defense against the hated neighbor. As long as Iran "thought" he had the weapons, they were less likely to cause trouble with him. Remember, Saddam was not a religious man. He only portrayed himself that way as a front to the outside world as needed. He knew that Iran could use the Shite population against him if he provided them a chance to mobilze.

There are all sorts of back and forth with Bush on the Iraq War. I have firmly believed that the end result will justify, to some extent, our actions in Iraq. If we had a do over, I'd suggest 150,000 in Afganistan and a more comprehensive attack on the Taliban. That said......we are there, we must succeed, and we cannot run from it like we did in the past. It only feeds the enemy, and weakens our stance.

One more thing......I still see Russia as an enemy we must not overlook. I'd like to say we are friends, but there's a growing sense of regression in the old U.S.S.R. You can add Chavez in that category as well.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's why I believe him in spite of your assume the worst take (though why the worst is only assumed of McClellan and not Rove, Cheney and that gang I don't quite understand).

I voted for Bush twice. I supported him and gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But slowly, over time and a lot of thought and consideration (and resistance because I didn't want to believe it), my mind began to change. I didn't go from supporting the war and Bush one day to ticked off the next. It took a couple of years or so. About 12-18 months ago, I knew and over those last few months it's only become more resolute: I think we were fed a line of bull****. I don't believe the reasons given were the real reasons we went to war and I think it's because they knew we wouldn't go for it under those reasons. I don't think we needed to go into Iraq. I think the administration tried everything in it's mule-like stubborn power to FUBAR the whole thing up for 2-3 years. And it cost us 4000 American lives not to mention countless innocent Iraqis. And I'm pissed. And only in the last little bit have I had the stones to admit it and say so publicly.

Therefore, I can understand why McClellan might not have said something. He's a press secretary amongst some very powerful, determined people. He's known Bush for a long time and wants to believe the best of him. But little by little over time he starts putting the pieces together. After he's had time to digest all he knows and really remember all the things he saw and heard, he gets the same thing in the pit of his gut I got and it hacks him off. Not only at the people in the administration who lied to him but at himself for either going along or not standing up or not putting it all together sooner and doing something about it. But he believes the truth ought to be told.

So what if he put it into a book he can sell? It's not like this could be encapsulated in a 3 page article in USA Today. I'd do the same thing if I thought the message was important enough.

I'll vouch for this. Time was, you were among the heaviest kool-aid drinking Bushbots on this site. Anyone who doesn't believe it can simply search your posts and see that it's true. It's been interesting to watch you change over the years.

I wouldn't gloat too much about it. Intelligent, reflective people can change their minds. It's a sign of maturity. If Obama wins the presidency, we'll be back to check your temperature in about five years.

[Tiger Al 0]

Here's why I believe him in spite of your assume the worst take (though why the worst is only assumed of McClellan and not Rove, Cheney and that gang I don't quite understand).

I voted for Bush twice. I supported him and gave him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But slowly, over time and a lot of thought and consideration (and resistance because I didn't want to believe it), my mind began to change. I didn't go from supporting the war and Bush one day to ticked off the next. It took a couple of years or so. About 12-18 months ago, I knew and over those last few months it's only become more resolute: I think we were fed a line of bull****. I don't believe the reasons given were the real reasons we went to war and I think it's because they knew we wouldn't go for it under those reasons. I don't think we needed to go into Iraq. I think the administration tried everything in it's mule-like stubborn power to FUBAR the whole thing up for 2-3 years. And it cost us 4000 American lives not to mention countless innocent Iraqis. And I'm pissed. And only in the last little bit have I had the stones to admit it and say so publicly.

Therefore, I can understand why McClellan might not have said something. He's a press secretary amongst some very powerful, determined people. He's known Bush for a long time and wants to believe the best of him. But little by little over time he starts putting the pieces together. After he's had time to digest all he knows and really remember all the things he saw and heard, he gets the same thing in the pit of his gut I got and it hacks him off. Not only at the people in the administration who lied to him but at himself for either going along or not standing up or not putting it all together sooner and doing something about it. But he believes the truth ought to be told.

So what if he put it into a book he can sell? It's not like this could be encapsulated in a 3 page article in USA Today. I'd do the same thing if I thought the message was important enough.

I'll vouch for this. Time was, you were among the heaviest kool-aid drinking Bushbots on this site. Anyone who doesn't believe it can simply search your posts and see that it's true. It's been interesting to watch you change over the years.

I wouldn't gloat too much about it. Intelligent, reflective people can change their minds. It's a sign of maturity. If Obama wins the presidency, we'll be back to check your temperature in about five years.

I'm not gloating. I had nothing to do with it. While there's still much that Titan and I would disagree on, at least with him I know that his responses probably won't be driven by the latest RNC talking points and, hopefully, he knows the mine aren't driven by DNC talking points.

As for Obama, if he's as (near) universally recognized as Bush is for being a terrible president, I'll be as tough on him as I've been on Bush.