Are we actually doing any good in IRAQ?

[Ghost of BiB]

From the first paragraph and the third:

 

And here is what I described:

 

There are multiple examples in the piece stating that the military used the press to do just what was stated.  They even used the term "psy-ops."   I suppose I could rephrase it:

I do see a problem with it, because it's another half-truth used to drum up support for their war.

657550[/snapback]

 

It's a program to anti-deify Zarqawi within Iraq, which BTW has been somewhat successful. This is a good thing. WTF do you think psyops are for?

 

A bleed over to the American Media is bound to happen. You can't say "Zarqaqwi Bad" in Iraq, and say "Zarquawi not so bad" on CNN or FOX, because they watch our news more than their own. "Drumming up support for the war" is a conjecture. I also have reasons to believe that that part comes from the "cons" side of the briefing charts. When discussing possible courses of action, pros and cons are layed out so that decision makers can weigh them in balance. This sort of bleeds into the "Admin is insane" thread. Possible military course of action for problems generally range on a scale, from "Do Nothing" through some "extreme measures". They are listed with pros and cons and in the higher order, a careful examination of the "consequences of execution" are done. Very often the most effective military solution is scrapped because of the over riding factors of COE.

[Scraps]

I'll tack this WaPo article onto this thread, because it deals with Iraq and the above-mentioned propaganda.

 

Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi

The gist of the article points to a psy-ops program aimed at US citizens to enhance the idea that Al-Qaeda is instrumental in the insurgency.

I love the part where they mention Fox News.  It's a good thing this administration has such an honest and forthright track record with the american people, otherwise I might feel used.

657509[/snapback]

 

Its pretty clear from the article that the primary targets of this campaign were Iraqis, to drive a wedge between Iraqis and foreign jihadists. I'd imagine a secondary target was the broader muslim world, for the same purpose.

 

The idea tht Zaqawi's role in the insurgency has been overstated has been out there for a couple of years now. What is the problem with villifying a man who cuts the heads off of living people?

[Ghost of BiB]

Its pretty clear from the article that the primary targets of this campaign were Iraqis, to drive a wedge between Iraqis and foreign jihadists.  I'd imagine a secondary target was the broader muslim world, for the same purpose.

 

The idea tht Zaqawi's role in the insurgency has been overstated has been out there for a couple of years now.  What is the problem with villifying a man who cuts the heads off of living people?

657634[/snapback]

 

Because Coli only saw what he wanted to see?

[KRC]

What is the problem with villifying a man who cuts the heads off of living people?

657634[/snapback]

 

It was only a couple of heads. A few car bombings here, and assassination or two there, a few beheadings...nothing to get worked up over.

[Johnny Coli]

Its pretty clear from the article that the primary targets of this campaign were Iraqis, to drive a wedge between Iraqis and foreign jihadists.  I'd imagine a secondary target was the broader muslim world, for the same purpose.

 

The idea tht Zaqawi's role in the insurgency has been overstated has been out there for a couple of years now.  What is the problem with villifying a man who cuts the heads off of living people?

657634[/snapback]

I'm not understating what a POS Zarqawi is. He should be villified, and I agree with the effort in trying to split the insurgency.

 

But the idea that Zarqawi and al-Qaeda are the driving force behind the insurgency, as purported constantly by Bush in his speechs, is not entirely truthfull. It's slightly more than "bleed" back to the american press. He continually states that it is the reason we are there...to paraphrase, to take the fight to al-Qaeda.

 

Is he there? Yup. Is he a piece of garbage that deserves the worst of the worst when he's caught? A big yup. Is he being used as a tool to keep support in the US up for the war in Iraq? IMO, Yup.

 

That's all I'm saying. The administration refuses to admit they have a civil war going on, because the american people are already more than skeptical about why we're in Iraq. If you walked out onto the street today, and asked 100 people who they think is responsible for the insurgency in Iraq, what do you think the majority of the answers would be? Ergo, successful propaganda campaign.

[Johnny Coli]

Because Coli only saw what he wanted to see?

657638[/snapback]

As opposed to what the administration wants me to see? Let's turn this debate into belittling my views and my missing the big picture.

[Ghost of BiB]

As opposed to what the administration wants me to see? Let's turn this debate into belittling my views and my missing the big picture.

657677[/snapback]

 

You got me at the "gist of the article" part. I don't think that was the primary intention of the article.

 

In fairness, I don't listen to Bush's speaches. Who would? Is he actually using the phrase Al Quaida predominantly? Or is he using the phrase "terrorists" generically? Currently, the more worrisome outside influence is coming from Iran, but I don't know how politically correct it is right now to go there.

[Johnny Coli]

You got me at the "gist of the article" part. I don't think that was the primary intention of the article.

 

In fairness, I don't listen to Bush's speaches. Who would? Is he actually using the phrase Al Quaida predominantly? Or is he using the phrase "terrorists" generically? Currently, the more worrisome outside influence is coming from Iran, but I don't know how politically correct it is right now to go there.

657681[/snapback]

It's been a talking point for Bush when he speaks about Iraq. He's repeatedly used insurgency, al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi almost interchangably when discussing the war in Iraq.

From a speech 10 months ago (WH link):

Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life."

[...]

Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

[...]

And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

That single instance is the only time he mentions "regime remnants" in the whole speech.

 

Look, as stated in a previous post, I'm 100% behind getting Zarqawi. But selling a bunch of half-truths because you're afraid your support at home for the war will dissappear is pretty freaking weak.

[Ghost of BiB]

It's been a talking point for Bush when he speaks about Iraq.  He's repeatedly used insurgency, al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi almost interchangably when discussing the war in Iraq.

From a speech 10 months ago (WH link):

 

That single instance is the only time he mentions "regime remnants" in the whole speech. 

 

Look, as stated in a previous post, I'm 100% behind getting Zarqawi.  But selling a bunch of half-truths because you're afraid your support at home for the war will dissappear is pretty freaking weak.

657686[/snapback]

 

And, at the risk of sounding apologetic, none of this is false, either. Especially something from close to a year ago. Whether it's right to do or not, I don't see the admin putting their own spin on things as a major shock considering their opposition never passes up an opportunity. There's two articles at the top of the board today that are definitely spun to put them in the worse light.

 

The devil is in the details. The details aren't that hard to Google. I wouldn't expect anything different out of a Democratic administration.

 

I also don't think at this point in time that very many people are buying the Iraq=War on Terror argument. There was a time during the conflict where that was very true. It's not that true anymore. A lot of that has to do with success in that area. Now, it can get turned around into a liability. Conditions have changed.

 

You can go back and re-read my take on whether we are accomplishing anything in Iraq, if you think I'm sticking up for Bush here. What constantly gets irritating is this the disinformation that everyone is willing to buy at face value from the anti-Bush side of the arguments. For some reason, the same leeway doesn't hold true from their side.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It's been a talking point for Bush when he speaks about Iraq.  He's repeatedly used insurgency, al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi almost interchangably when discussing the war in Iraq.

From a speech 10 months ago (WH link):

 

That single instance is the only time he mentions "regime remnants" in the whole speech. 

 

Look, as stated in a previous post, I'm 100% behind getting Zarqawi.  But selling a bunch of half-truths because you're afraid your support at home for the war will dissappear is pretty freaking weak.

657686[/snapback]

 

Of course, BiB asked if he's using "Al Qaeda" specifically and not "terrorists" generically...and you just provided quotes that demonstrate he's using the term "terrorists" generically.

 

Unless you're assuming that "terrorists" specifically equates to "Al Qaeda"...which is, again, your assumption.

[Johnny Coli]

Of course, BiB asked if he's using "Al Qaeda" specifically and not "terrorists" generically...and you just provided quotes that demonstrate he's using the term "terrorists" generically.

 

Unless you're assuming that "terrorists" specifically equates to "Al Qaeda"...which is, again, your assumption.

657702[/snapback]

Based on the context of his whole speech, I don't think you could come away without linking "militant", "al-Qaeda" and "terrorist" together as the same entity. Here's a section using all three, and wrapping it up using "enemy in Iraq", where "enemy" is referred to as al-Qaeda from his first point.

 

Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. For this reason, we're fighting beside our Afghan partners against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. For this reason, we're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. And for this reason, we're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power -- and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq.

 

Here's "enemy" in the context of his first point:

Overall, the United States and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country. Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations.

 

The speech writer has clearly distinguished regime remnants from terrorists, and has clearly defined terrorists and enemy. It's a great speech for defining who the enemy is. He's got good writers, I'll give him that.

[Ghost of BiB]

Based on the context of his whole speech, I don't think you could come away without linking "militant", "al-Qaeda" and "terrorist" together as the same entity. Here's a section using all three, and wrapping it up using "enemy in Iraq", where "enemy" is referred to as al-Qaeda from his first point.

Here's "enemy" in the context of his first point:

The speech writer has clearly distinguished regime remnants from terrorists, and has clearly defined terrorists and enemy.  It's a great speech for defining who the enemy is.  He's got good writers, I'll give him that.

657742[/snapback]

 

Go back and re-read the entire speech with an eye on the radical Islamic ideology and movement, rather than an emphasis on "Bush lying to drum up support for his war", and see if you get a slightly different take.

[Johnny Coli]

And, at the risk of sounding apologetic, none of this is false, either. Especially something from close to a year ago. Whether it's right to do or not, I don't see the admin putting their own spin on things as a major shock considering their opposition never passes up an opportunity. There's two articles at the top of the board today that are definitely spun to put them in the worse light.

 

The devil is in the details. The details aren't that hard to Google. I wouldn't expect anything different out of a Democratic administration.

 

I also don't think at this point in time that very many people are buying the Iraq=War on Terror argument. There was a time during the conflict where that was very true. It's not that true anymore. A lot of that has to do with success in that area. Now, it can get turned around into a liability. Conditions have changed.

 

You can go back and re-read my take on whether we are accomplishing anything in Iraq, if you think I'm sticking up for Bush here. What constantly gets irritating is this the disinformation that everyone is willing to buy at face value from the anti-Bush side of the arguments. For some reason, the same leeway doesn't hold true from their side.

657700[/snapback]

 

I did read your response in this thread from last week, and I found the candor to be a lot more refreshing than what is coming out of the administration.

 

As for disinformation, the "anti-Bush" crowd as you have referred to them, have quite a lot of ground to cover to even approach the level of disinformation coming out of this administration.

[Johnny Coli]

Go back and re-read the entire speech with an eye on the radical Islamic ideology and movement, rather than an emphasis on "Bush lying to drum up support for his war", and see if you get a slightly different take.

657755[/snapback]

I have read the whole speech. He seems pretty specific as to who he's refferring to:

Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria.

[...]

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: "The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It's either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.

[...]

Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.

 

He goes on and on about al Qaeda, militants, and attempting to control Iraq. He may not be outright lying, but he's not exactly being totally truthfull about the nature of the insurgency in Iraq, either, which also harkens back to his selective declassification of intelligence to sell the war to begin with.

[Ghost of BiB]

I have read the whole speech.  He seems pretty specific as to who he's refferring to:

He goes on and on about al Qaeda, militants, and attempting to control Iraq.  He may not be outright lying, but he's not exactly being totally truthfull about the nature of the insurgency in Iraq, either, which also harkens back to his selective declassification of intelligence to sell the war to begin with.

657784[/snapback]

 

And once again, there isn't anything that is a falsehood here, especially taken in the context of what was going on 10 months ago, and earlier. The local militants have only fairly recently begun to divorce themselves from the Zarqawi influence, but many are still taken up with the ideology and are affiliated with organized and in some cases state sponsored terrorist movements. Many of these movements are affiliated through the overall network with various Al Qaida affiliated factions. I think part of the issue is here might be a not fully understood nature of the enemy.

 

How would you approach this at an "event" speech? Are you going to make it an educational symposium on the intricacies of trans-national terrorism movements and their influence on operations within Iraq? Or are you going to try to get across an overall philosophy vs an ideological movement?

[Johnny Coli]

I also don't think at this point in time that very many people are buying the Iraq=War on Terror argument. There was a time during the conflict where that was very true. It's not that true anymore. A lot of that has to do with success in that area. Now, it can get turned around into a liability. Conditions have changed.

657700[/snapback]

And they've changed right back....Zarqawi still a big problem

The U.S. military denied on Monday a newspaper report that it had waged a propaganda campaign to overstate the threat posed by al Qaeda's leader in Iraq.

There you go. I was wrong. No propaganda. Iraq=War on Terror, just like Dubya says.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

And they've changed right back....Zarqawi still a big problem

 

There you go.  I was wrong.  No propaganda.  Iraq=War on Terror, just like Dubya says.

658231[/snapback]

 

I'm glad that alertnet.org is alerting humanitarians such as yourself to emergencies...

 

[Johnny Coli]

I'm glad that alertnet.org is alerting humanitarians such as yourself to emergencies...

 

658243[/snapback]

It's a Reuters article.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

It's a Reuters article.

658253[/snapback]

 

And aren't you glad you were alerted to it?

[Johnny Coli]

And aren't you glad you were alerted to it?

658257[/snapback]

It was the top link.

 

Here it is linked from Wapo, if that makes it any more relevent.

Same Reuters story, but linked to from WaPo to satisfy Gavin

Here it is in the Boston Globe.

Same Reuters story, but linked to from the Globe to satisfy Gavin