A Serious Failure of Leadership
As reported today by the New York Times (Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/world/middleeast/30reconstruct.html?hp&ex=1162270800&en=bfe1488484d2e635&ei=5094&partner=homepage), the incompetence of our military leaders, Rummy, and Dubya is showcased.
Check out this passage from the article in particular: "The answers came Sunday from the inspector general’s office, which found major discrepancies in American military records on where thousands of 9-millimeter pistols and hundreds of assault rifles and other weapons have ended up. The American military did not even take the elementary step of recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong hands.
Exactly where untracked weapons could end up — and whether some have been used against American soldiers — were not examined in the report, although black-market arms dealers thrive on the streets of Baghdad, and official Iraq Army and police uniforms can easily be purchased as well, presumably because government shipments are intercepted or otherwise corrupted."
The spread of capitalism isn't a bad thing at all, but for the military to pathetically foster a market, albeit black, for guns because of their incompetence is downright astounding. This report harkens back to the munition dumps that were unguarded or poorly guarded during and after the fall of Baghdad.
Yet more money mispent.
posted by Quintilian B. Nasty @ 10:19 AM
6 Comments:
Any comment on the NY Times admitting that Saddam had the capability and the desire to get nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ei=5065&en=9b92b000e0a064e6&ex=1163134800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Even though it wasn't the only reason to go to war with Saddam, "lies about WMD" is one of the anti-Bush staples.
I'll admit that the prosecution of the war hasn't been ideal, but invading Iraq was necessary for our national security.
Travolta
While they might have had plans like most nations in the world can have plans and nuclear ambitions (a list of countries that seems to be growing), Iraq didn't have viable means to garner such material, regardless of specious claims about "yellow cake" aspirations.
The NY Times article you've linked, in my skeptical eye, also has some important diction that we need to pay attention to. The web documents look to be a bit of a PR ploy by Republicans: "The official, who requested anonymity because of his agency’s rules against public comment, called the papers “a road map that helps you get from point A to point B, but only if you already have a car.”
Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a private group at George Washington University that tracks federal secrecy decisions, said the impetus for the Web site’s creation came from an array of sources — private conservative groups, Congressional Republicans and some figures in the Bush administration — who clung to the belief that close examination of the captured documents would show that Mr. Hussein’s government had clandestinely reconstituted an unconventional arms programs."
"Belief" is a crucial word choice there, and it's obvious the GOP is trying to save face or find some cover.
In addition, here's another relevant passage: "But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."
So it's still the pre-Gulf War evidence just like the administration's support for the invasion partially predicated on the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons "on his own people," a point of support that was used for Desert Storm over a decade ago.
Here's yet another important passage: "In September, the Web site began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier."
Misleading, yes.
As the linked article from Foreign Affairs lays out, the whole regime was delusional in a number of different ways: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html
The Emperor had some mighty fine clothes.
What about Cheney's claims of mobile weapons labs or the connection to Al Qaeda? And as ousted people in Bush's cabinet will tell you, after 9/11 the Bushites had intentions of invading Iraq even when it was clear Saddam wasn't involved with the attack. That alone makes me question the credibility of this administration, to put it nicely.
From my perspective, invading Iraq, which in turn opened up the borders to various influences from outside that country (like Iran), has created more trouble and pain for America and shouldn't have been the highest on the list of priorities for our "national security." Having stringent security at our ports, chemical plants, water purification facilities, etc. are better places to start. That and finishing the job in Afghanistan.
Because of our foolish invasion (hubris) and the botched plan/lack of plan for post-invasion Iraq, the country has become a training ground for terrorists, a home for civil war, and a vivid example of what some folks would consider American "imperialism" and "exceptionalism" (you countries do what the US says, and we can do whatever the hell we want to, like pre-emption) that spurs more hatred and violence toward Americans.
They led us into the mess, and they need to take responsibility for it.
...The web documents look to be a bit of a PR ploy by Republicans...
Are you actually suggesting that the New York Times is trying to help the Republicans?
What about Cheney's claims of mobile weapons labs or the connection to Al Qaeda? And as ousted people in Bush's cabinet will tell you, after 9/11 the Bushites had intentions of invading Iraq even when it was clear Saddam wasn't involved with the attack.
Cheney's claims? While there is no evidence that Saddam was involved with 9/11, there is plenty that he, at the very least, allowed terrorists haven in Iraq. The US military discovered several terrorist training camps around Iraq that appear to have been used by Al-Qaeda.
Besides, the "Bushites" understand that the enemy isn't only Osama and Al-Qaeda.
I found an essay by Orson Scott Card that describes what he believes is wrong with the current Democratic leadership. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html
I urge everyone to carefully consider what he is saying here. The enemy is a global threat on par with the Communist empire, and they want to kill everyone of us. This isn't "fear-mongering", this is the truth. We will have to fight them either now when they are trying to gain power, or later when they actually have achieved power.
I can understand most of the Democratic party's political positions, and I agree with some of them while disagreeing with others. But I truly believe that the Dems refusal to take the enemy threat seriously is a mortal threat to our country. If they proposed a different way of fighting the enemy, then that would be one thing. But it seems to me that they just want to stop fighting because "war is bad".
War is a terrible thing, but it is not the worst thing.
Travolta
The "web documents" (not the NY Times article) that were provided by the GOP leadership is a bit of a PR ploy, and as any person who follows journalism closely knows, "official sources" certainly can influence the way "facts" are reported in the media. Ask Judith Miller.
Where were these camps, and were they established after the invasion? And is there any substative evidence that Hussein knew about them and let them be as they are? Isreali intelligence told the US military that they had to shore up the borders of Iraq once we invaded, so outside influences wouldn't establish toeholds. Hussein is/was a horrible man, but as a lot of reports indicate, he didn't have any love for Shiites like Osama. It's a "sectarian violence" thing.
Non-GOP people (whether progressive, liberal, or libertarian, Green, whatever) "take the enemy threat seriously" and acknowledge that it "is a mortal threat to our country." To assume or assert that Dems don't is being intellectually lazy and borders on progaganda that smacks of Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity style agitprop frankly.
To state that Dems don't take the terrorist threat seriously is absolute bullshit and manipulative rhetoric. Next thing you'll be calling Dems "traitors" to the country.
The latter premise (after WMDs) of Bush's war in Iraq is that establishing democracy in that corner of the globe will change the region and protect us from terrorism. That premise is a reverse domino theory, a vast slippery slope that has unbound costs.
Democracies start because the people within a country want and desire a different form of government. People can make all kinds of shaky comparisons to Japan or Germany or other efforts in American nation-building all they want, but an "Operation Enduring Occupation" (thank you, Simpsons) to create democracy isn't going to work in my opinion. I hope history proves me wrong since we spent billions and billions of dollars on this gambit and lost and injured many, many soldiers, but I doubt it will.
QBN
To state that Dems don't take the terrorist threat seriously is absolute bullshit and manipulative rhetoric. Next thing you'll be calling Dems "traitors" to the country.
It is obvious that we won't change each others' minds.
But, I don't think the Dems are traitors. I think that they think terrorism is a problem, but not an existential threat to America. I think that they think that our presence in Iraq creates terrorists. I think they think that "sensible redeployment" and winning back a favorable opinion from the rest of the world will reduce terrorism.
I believe that line of thinking is critically mistaken and possibly fatal to the USA. The threat from the terrorists really is that bad, they would absolutely kill all of us, given the chance. We have to take the fight to the enemy to deny them that chance. I would like to have the rest of the civilized world with us, but if it is only Britain, Australia, and part of Eastern Europe, then so be it. I absolutely do not care what the UN has to say about it.
I choose to believe that the Democratic leadership really believes what I outlined above, because if they don't then they are putting their party's political goals ahead of their country's safety.
Don't forget to vote today.
Travolta
Congratulations to the Democrats on their victory.
I hope I'm wrong about their views on national security.
Travolta
Post a Comment
<< Home